Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too

Posted by: theJourney

Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 06:09 AM

Quote:

BANGKOK (Reuters) - Award-winning Russian pianist Mikhail Pletnev has been arrested at a Thai beach resort, accused of raping a boy, police said Wednesday.

Pletnev, 53, an acclaimed pianist and conductor of the Russian National Orchestra, was arrested in Pattaya charged with raping a 14-year-old Thai boy and appearing in compromising photographs with several others.

"We received a tip-off from a detained Thai man who is involved in a prostitution ring. And we received more information from the child's parents, the child himself and other witnesses," Police Lieutenant-Colonel Omsin Sukkanka said.

Omsin said Pletnev denied the allegations.

Pletnev was served with an arrest warrant while having dinner at a restaurant Monday evening. He was released on 300,000 baht (5,965 pound) bail Tuesday but will have to ask for court permission to leave the country.

He faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison if found guilty.

Police said Pletnev had a house and several businesses in Pattaya, a popular tourist destination 150 km (90 miles) from Bangkok.

The resort town has been known for its vibrant nightlife and sex trade since the days of the Vietnam War, partly due to its proximity to an American air force base at the time.

Pletnev is a member of the Russian president's advisory board on culture and holds the title of "people's artist," the highest state merit conferred on people in the arts.

He founded the Russian National Orchestra, whose recording of Sergei Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf and Beintus's Wolf Tracks, conducted by Kent Nagano and narrated by Sophia Loren, Bill Clinton and Mikhail Gorbachev, received a 2004 Grammy Award.

In 2005, he won a Grammy Award for his own arrangement of Prokofiev's Cinderella.


http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/07/0...ref=global-home
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 07:03 AM

Oh no - as if we pianists don't already have a bad enough reputation, now we have to add this to the bunch. Groan..

What's really ironic, is that upon opening my composers book this morning to a random page, it fell upon Saint-Saens. Then this news.
Posted by: Numerian

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 07:49 AM

I didn't know we pianists had a bad enough reputation. I remember reading about a Russian teacher accused of inappropriate behavior towards his students. I don't think there are too many other similar cases.
Posted by: CWPiano

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 08:46 AM

I am not surprised. If you are in the field, you would have realised many male pianists are homosexuals and some have 'peculiar taste'. In general we just turn a blind eye to this, although personally I am not very sure if it is a moral thing to do.
Posted by: theJourney

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 09:23 AM

Well, I don't think that pianists necessarily have a reputation for being homosexuals and certainly don't think that they have a reputation for being pedophiles (unless the pianists are also Catholic priests). Horowitz did famously say however that as far as he was concerned there are only three kinds of pianists: gay pianists, Jewish pianists or bad pianists.

The story here is in my mind not about homosexuality, which in most civilized countries is well understood as being a normal form of human sexuality and quite accepted as normal, but the fact that he has been accused of sexual molestation of minors which is a taboo and illegal almost everywhere in the world. As you probably know, this is a big problem in Thailand and other Asian countries, but primarily it is a problem of straight, often married white men from America and Europe coming to Thailand to abuse underage girls. Recently there have been increased efforts to stop this kind of crime.

Let us hope for Pletnev that this was all a misunderstanding or setup or this will likely be the end of his career and the end of his freedom.
Posted by: moscheles001

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 10:05 AM

The majority of child-abusers are heterosexual.
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 11:00 AM

If it's true, I hope they lock him up for life.
Posted by: John Joe Townley

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 11:46 AM

Originally Posted By: AngelinaPogorelich
If it's true, I hope they lock him up for life.


Just as long as they let him continue to play and conduct the Bang Kwang Prison Philharmonic Orchestra.

PS I wonder if the "bang" part is named as such because that's what most of the prisoners are in there for.
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 11:51 AM

Is that name for real? Haha wow.. No they should lock him up in a small cell and leave him there for endless years.
Posted by: jdhampton924

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 12:02 PM

I know it is off topic, but where I am from, there is a reputation for pianists to be gay, or feminine. Sometimes it is just assumed. Not going to comment on it, just saying it is there, and a lot of people, at least where I have been, think this way. It has rarely brought any trouble and in nearly all cases has not led to any discrimination.

Funny side note, I have several people I went to Jr. high and High school with who are still waiting for me to come out of the closet, in their minds they are convinced that I have to be gay. I have even gotten very thoughtful emails about how they would still accept and love me for who I am.
Posted by: SeilerFan

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 12:10 PM

This whole thing if it turns out to be true is very sad. I hope he'll be punished according to the law. I don't think I am entitled to cast aspersions on him, though. The problem is that we want great musicians to also be great people and then we're disappointed when they are not.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 12:21 PM

Originally Posted By: theJourney
Horowitz did famously say however that as far as he was concerned there are only three kinds of pianists: gay pianists, Jewish pianists or bad pianists.


He forgot Franz Liszt.
Posted by: LisztAddict

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 12:47 PM

Originally Posted By: SeilerFan
This whole thing if it turns out to be true is very sad......The problem is that we want great musicians to also be great people and then we're disappointed when they are not.


Much like many of my heroes in bicycle racing turned out to be dopers.
Posted by: Kreisler

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 12:50 PM

When I was teaching at a university, I asked one of the grad students (who had also become a good friend) what the "rumor mill" was saying about me. Apparently, depending on who you asked in 2003, I was:

Jewish
Gay
Dating all of the 3 single female music faculty members
Had a long-distance marriage/girlfriend

I let the rumors be, didn't deny any of them, and occasionally made comments that suggested all were true. I just didn't have the heart to disappoint everyone. (In reality, I spent all my free time practicing or playing golf and video games.)

Originally Posted By: jdhampton924
Funny side note, I have several people I went to Jr. high and High school with who are still waiting for me to come out of the closet, in their minds they are convinced that I have to be gay. I have even gotten very thoughtful emails about how they would still accept and love me for who I am.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 12:53 PM

Originally Posted By: moscheles001
The majority of child-abusers are heterosexual.
That is true, but unhelpful, given the vast differences in the numbers of homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 12:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: theJourney
Horowitz did famously say however that as far as he was concerned there are only three kinds of pianists: gay pianists, Jewish pianists or bad pianists.


He forgot Franz Liszt.


Or any female pianist.......... Or the really, really good straight male pianists - and I've met at least two like that =)
Posted by: jdhampton924

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 12:54 PM

They were very nice written out notes, so in most cases, I take them as compliments either way. That one, they would go out of their way to let me know that stuff did not matter. And two, that they thought enough to send a note.

No need to ever get upset over those things, I have curly hair, and I let it grow out for a time, during this time people assumed I was Jewish.

When I go fishing, in t shirt jeans, and baseball cap, people just assume bad. wink
Posted by: BruceD

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 02:19 PM

This is sad news, indeed, but sad as it is, Pletnev must bear the consequences of his actions.

Regards,
Posted by: argerichfan

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 02:41 PM

The coverage in the Huffington Post reports that Pletnev claims he's being blackmailed. Interesting...
Posted by: jdhampton924

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 02:42 PM

Originally Posted By: argerichfan
The coverage in the Huffington Post reports that Pletnev claims he's being blackmailed. Interesting...


Doesn't that mean they have something to blackmail him with?
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 03:09 PM

This is very disturbing news, on a number of levels.

To start with the most recent point: Pletnev states he is being blackmailed.
Blackmail generally refers to a threat to reveal damaging information about a person. It's possible that Pletnev was being blackmailed with being "outed" as a gay man. It may also be the case that he was involved with an underage boy - or even that he was involved in running a child prostitution ring. Or he may be involved in simple money laundering. All of theese things are common in Thailand. All of the above may be true, or some, or none.

Whether Pletnev is innocent or guilty will be for the court to determine. If he is found innocent, a shadow will probably hang over the rest of his career anyway because people remember the charges even after forgetting the verdict. If he's guilty, he's likely going to jail and deservedly so.

As a gay man, when I hear of news like this, it upsets me greatly. Because I know there are those out there who equate homosexuality with pedophilia. Whether it be at the hands of a musician or the local priest, there are those in our society who feel inclined to paint with an awfully broad brush. It must be mentioned that most countries where child sex trafficking takes place are hardly what one would consider gay friendly. It's notorious not only in Thailand, but in Pletnev's own Russia and many Muslim countries including Egypt.

I need hardly mention that the sheer tonage of homosexual pianists (both male and female) would stun a team of oxen in its tracks. A very few, like Stephen Hough and Jean-Yves Thibaudet, have voluntarily come out of the closet. Many more have not, even in today's relatively enlightened age. Being out of the closet is not a big deal if one wants a career in Western Europe. But one could kiss one's career good-bye in Russia and much of Asia. Even in the United States, it can be hard going. (I know of one American competition where a pianist came in second to a lesser player because a few members of the jury thought he was "too effeminate".)

As to Horowitz's remark about gay, Jewish, and bad pianists - I am two out of three (hint: I am not Jewish).

FOLLOW UP: Someone in a newsgroup posted a translation from a Russian news article. Apparently, Pletnev has been accused of this kind of thing before, in Japan, and was said to be involved in something called the "Blue Orchid" scandal in Russia.
Posted by: davaofthekeys

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 04:19 PM

Well, at least he did some good things too, like the Prokofiev arrangements. I shall try to remember how his piano playing touched my heart rather than how he touched some kids.


(Allegedly)
Posted by: Skorpius

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 04:40 PM

Um...wow, you would never think that Pletnev would do such a thing, but WOW...I am speechless.
Posted by: Skorpius

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 04:45 PM

BTW, I'm not gay or Jewish, so I MUST be a bad pianist T_T
Posted by: ChopinAddict

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 06:16 PM

If it is true, of course he should be punished, and very hard too.
Posted by: BruceD

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 06:31 PM

Is it not true that in some countries, "sex tourism" is big business? From what a regular visitor to Thailand tells me, Thailand has that reputation. One may be tempted to think that one can get away with indulging in whatever forms of it are offered to tourists by the locals. In some cases, this is the sole reason that some people visit countries where sex trade is widely available.

This is not an excuse, of course, of the actions of which Pletnev is being accused, but it may well be that he would not even have thought of such alleged activities in a western country.

Regards,
Posted by: sophial

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 08:22 PM

I just saw this news about Pletnev-- it's very sickening if true and upsetting as he is a great artist. His CD of Scarlatti sonatas is one of my favorites and just sublime. It is always so difficult to reconcile artistry of that level with sordid news like this.(Haven't similar rumors and concerns been raised about Schubert even?) I'm hoping it is somehow proved wrong but often by the time people are apprehended in situations like this there is a trail of repeated acts and evidence. Someone mentioned in a previous post similar allegations surfacing in Japan. I hope there is a credible other side to this story.

Sophia
Posted by: Elissa Milne

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 08:37 PM

I'm aware of LOADS of dodgy dealings (inappropriate sexual advances from much older teacher to underage or barely legal age students) in the music education business, and many of my friends had narrow escapes, some of them literally running away: locking themselves in bathrooms and squeezing out the window, for example, to get away from unwelcome 'teaching' situations, or at the other extreme, running for miles through the country because the piano teacher was giving lessons at his 'farm' that day...... All sorts of outrageous, unethical and downright illegal behaviours. And none of those men have had charges laid against them - which maybe reflects changing societal norms and expectations in 2010 as compared to the 1980s.

These are similar to stories of abuse by Catholic priests.... I reckon there'll be a lot more cases of both priests and pianists before the culture has had a proper shake out.
Posted by: argerichfan

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 09:00 PM

Originally Posted By: sophial
I just saw this news about Pletnev-- it's very sickening if true and upsetting as he is a great artist.

If I didn't particularly care for his Beethoven Pastoral, I have admired his piano recordings. The Tchaikovsky concertos are quite fine, as are the Chopin Impromptus, mentioned in a post earlier.

Interesting that The Huffington Post mentioned his Grammy winning CD of Prokofiev's Cinderella with Martha Argerich. To the best of my knowledge, none of the other news sources I consulted were this specific.

I do wonder what Martha thinks about this rather unfortunate development. Pletnev is an undeniably major talent -and that technique!- but whatever the outcome, he's going to be damaged goods as Hank Drake's fine post pointed out. Bloody damn shame.
Posted by: argerichfan

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 09:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Elissa Milne
I'm aware of LOADS of dodgy dealings (inappropriate sexual advances from much older teacher to underage or barely legal age students) in the music education business...

I was aware of some of this 'dodgy' stuff at uni, though I wasn't personally affected, nor any of my friends. But there were tales...

I don't even want to get into the Catholic priest stuff.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 09:14 PM

Sad to say, the reputation we have is out there - most people assume pianists are gay and effeminate (after all - playing the piano is not football!), limp-wristed or long-haired-type.
The first thing I hear out of most men's mouths is "Oh, like Liberace (snicker)" or "Oh, like Elton John (snicker)" or various forms of mispronouncing 'pianist' to predictably humorless results. Sometimes, I just skip that part and say "I'm a piano player" - which still leads to the inevitable mispronounciation of 'pianist' anyways.

It's just a fact of being a pianist - it no longer has the Franz Liszt appeal.
Of course, it's a little different with women - most women I talk to adore the fact that I'm a pianist. I guess it's the classic tradeoff: men think pianists are homosexuals, women think pianists are passionate, loving, border-line homosexuals.

And while some people yearn to live in a politically correct world where everyone is nice to each other no matter how they choose to live their life - some of us are still offended by the association of pianist with homosexual, for our own personal reasons, no matter how politically incorrect they may be. And there's nothing wrong with not wanting to be associated in that way - not all of us want to be trendy and appear to follow Bernstein's advice on how to be successful on Broadway.

As for Pletnev and his pedophilia - I'm sure Thailand is a wonderful place to live, beautiful scenery, and all that jazz. But doesn't the report say he owns a home there? Now I may be accused of stereotyping as well, but when a non-Thai spends a lot of time there and owns a home, there's usually only several things that are attracting him to that place - and one of those is possibly little slave boys. Of course, it could be little slave girls, too.

So it doesn't surprise me one bit if this turns out to be true. Of course, he's going to claim he's innocent. Who in their right mind would come out of the pedophile-closet? That's a one-way ticket to prison, and then being murdered while incarcerated: that appears to be one thing hardened criminals do not tolerate in their midst, unless that's another urban myth....
Even Japan is starting to crack down on their pedophile problems, or are at least trying to appear to be doing so.

Anyways, in the end - I'm just glad that he's not more well known, I suppose. It's always worse when the general public are familiar with a celebrity.
Posted by: CWPiano

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 09:26 PM

One of the issues this incident bring up is the field's apparent tolerance towards these immoral ethics. Like what some posters have pointed out, there were dodgy dealings, but no one want to come forward and expose these incidents. I am in the field and I am aware there are such things among the circles, but no one seems want to to whistle blow because no one wants to be the evil one who sabotage the career of other pianists hence affecting your standings in the music circle.
Posted by: Kreisler

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 09:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Elissa Milne
I'm aware of LOADS of dodgy dealings (inappropriate sexual advances from much older teacher to underage or barely legal age students) in the music education business...


Before she retired, my mother supervised child abuse and neglect cases for a county of about 250,000 people. When I asked her if music teachers were high on the list of offenders, she said the problem isn't really with music teachers, it's with adults who have access and trust.

This is why the vast majority of children are abused by people they know. Music teachers are certainly on the list, as are family members, neighbors, and church officials (and not just Catholic priests - living in the Bible Belt of the US, my mother saw a lot more cases involving Youth Ministers.) One youth minister where I used to live was even arrested after his computer AT WORK was found to contain a large amount of child pornography.

This is also one of the reasons I have an extremely open door policy in my studio. I teach on the ground floor of my house, windows open and easily visible from the front yard, and my door is unlocked during teaching hours. All my students' parents know they are welcome to walk in at any time, unannounced, and observe lessons.
Posted by: Piano*Dad

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 09:40 PM

Quote:
One of the issues this incident bring up is the field's apparent tolerance towards these immoral ethics.


Just how do you know this? It certainly isn't part of my personal experience of the field, or of my observations in general.
Posted by: CWPiano

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 09:52 PM

I know of at least two local pianists who exhibited pedophile activities and the music teachers here know about these. Both pianists are highly regarded and so far no one has volunteered to come forward to expose them.
Posted by: Piano*Dad

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 09:54 PM

Therefore 'the field' condones this sort of behavior? You can really draw this generalization? Wow.
Posted by: CWPiano

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 10:03 PM

I do believe all of us believe pedophilia is extremely wrong. I never say the field does not 'condone' this behaviour. We all are disgusted and abhor it. But the fact that these pianists remain in business despite other pianists knowing about their 'tastes'. It's just that everyone here goes on their own business. The attitude here is kind of 'You mind your own business and I mind my own business' and everybody lives happily ever after.
Posted by: argerichfan

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 10:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Sad to say, the reputation we have is out there - most people assume pianists are gay and effeminate (after all - playing the piano is not football!), limp-wristed or long-haired-type.

I got this attitude at school (pre-uni of course) when classmates saw me play the piano. But at 12 I discovered Beethoven in a BIG way, then later Liszt and Wagner. I could not imagine three more masculine sounding composers, yet what a load of crap I dealt with. (Classical music is for sissys? Really now.) There's nothing 'effeminate' about their powerfully charged music.

Then when I discovered Elgar at 20, here was a composer who spoke so boldly and profoundly to me. The forces of that 'yin and yang' were so powerfully contrasted, yet ultimately so superbly fused, it demonstrated to me what masculinity is all about.

It was a very revealing experience for me.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 10:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Piano*Dad
Therefore 'the field' condones this sort of behavior? You can really draw this generalization? Wow.
Agreed. It was an absurd comment to make based on such a tiny sample.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 10:36 PM

Great discussion here.
I don't have anything to add, probably in part because I'm uncomfortable with the subject, including because we don't really know yet what happened or didn't. As Hank Drake said, sadly he's scarred forever either way. I hope Pletnev didn't do it, but the bigger thing is, there's a lot of this that does goes on.

Excellent posts all around. Too bad it has to be on such a subject.
Posted by: sophial

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/07/10 11:21 PM

This was a concerning part of the story in the Huffington Post:

Pletnev denied rumors that he would flee Thailand. He is under a court order to remain in the country.

"I would jump from the 26th floor (of a building) tomorrow, if I could believe those news reports. It's interesting to learn something new about myself every day," he said.

I surely hope that someone is keeping an eye on him. People caught in such situations can become desperate. As others have said, either way his career and life will not be the same.
Posted by: Nikolas

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 01:19 AM

I'm just SO excited to read that Kreisler is playing video games! YAY! laugh

Actually there is a light rumor in Greece about pianists being gay and all that, but being married with two children counters that pretty well. Also NOT being a pianist helps! laugh

Another saying by Hatjidakis was that "musicians in Greece are either communists or gay. I'm not communist!". It does seem that this kind of thing (bad pianists, gay, etc), goes around in various variations.

On the Pletnev issue: It's hard to say really. There's tons of questions to be answered really. And to be perfectly fair, I've seen some 14-15 year old in London SO grown up that anyone could be fooled to think they are 17.

And yes, from my part, Thai is considered a sex dealings destination. But, sadly, his career will be shaken by this, no matter what. And of course it could be assumed that this is the result of a blackmail going wrong (Pletnev didn't give in, so they damanged him in this way).

__________________

There are VERY heavy rumors about priests, etc, here in Greece about both gay and pedophile issues. Stories get on the news very often and the whole 'profession' has been damaged by these news. Musicians are nowhere near as damaged as priests are.
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 01:39 AM

Of course the question has to be asked does hot housing a child encourage aberrant social behaviour somewhat à la Michael Jackson? Does separation from their peers at a very sensitive time in their development have later consequences? I'm also thinking Beethoven here.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 01:41 AM

Originally Posted By: keyboardklutz
Of course the question has to be asked does hot housing a child encourage aberrant social behaviour somewhat a la Michael Jackson? Does separation from their peers at a very sensitive time in their development have later consequences? I'm also thinking Beethoven here.
I think that's probably the case - it stands to reason that a child will be less likely to deviate from social norms when they're in an environment in which they're rigidly enforced.
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 01:42 AM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
I think that's probably the case - it stands to reason that a child will be less likely to deviate from social norms when they're in an environment in which they're rigidly enforced.
And children do nothing if not rigidly enforce their norms!
Posted by: bplary1300

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 01:53 AM

This is my philosophy. If anyone thinks I'm gay because I play the piano, I don't want to associate with them anyways so it doesn't matter what they think.
Posted by: wr

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 02:21 AM

Originally Posted By: keyboardklutz
Of course the question has to be asked does hot housing a child encourage aberrant social behaviour somewhat à la Michael Jackson? Does separation from their peers at a very sensitive time in their development have later consequences? I'm also thinking Beethoven here.


Outrageously talented people often "hothouse" themselves without any help from the world, and often don't have much interest in being "normal". Frankly, I'm glad Beethoven was Beethoven. I realize it is selfish of me not to wish he were just another well-adjusted mensch, but that's just how I am.
Posted by: Ferdinand

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 02:43 AM

Originally Posted By: sophial
I just saw this news about Pletnev-- it's very sickening if true and upsetting as he is a great artist. His CD of Scarlatti sonatas is one of my favorites and just sublime. It is always so difficult to reconcile artistry of that level with sordid news like this.(Haven't similar rumors and concerns been raised about Schubert even?) I'm hoping it is somehow proved wrong but often by the time people are apprehended in situations like this there is a trail of repeated acts and evidence. Someone mentioned in a previous post similar allegations surfacing in Japan. I hope there is a credible other side to this story.

Sophia

Schubert was suspected of being a pedophile? I have never heard this before.
Posted by: theJourney

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 03:07 AM

For some people anything that is not "married in the missionary position with the lights out" is all the same kind of undifferentiated sexual depravity. They are also usually the ones who are most interested in the rumors of others' as well.

Quote:

It will probably never be proven whether Schubert was straight or bent: that kind of evidence is not often forthcoming. We owe a debt to Maynard Solomon, however: along with the unwitting help of Dr. Steblin’s research on Schubert’s unfulfilled relations with women, he has conclusively demonstrated that the composer was a man of ebullient and powerful sexuality living in a society in which his nature had to be repressed. It is interesting that all treatments of Schubert’s sexuality have been forced into trying to decipher a code: it suggests there was something to hide. We have learned a great deal from the controversy. But, as I implied in my review, determining simply whether Schubert was homosexual or not would not tell us anything really important about his personality. So long as we are ignorant of crucial details, like whether Schubert was passive or aggressive, preferred immediate satisfaction or extended foreplay, I do not care if he slept with men, women, or horses.


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1994/oct/20/schubert-a-la-mode/
Posted by: stores

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 04:36 AM

Originally Posted By: CWPiano
One of the issues this incident bring up is the field's apparent tolerance towards these immoral ethics. Like what some posters have pointed out, there were dodgy dealings, but no one want to come forward and expose these incidents. I am in the field and I am aware there are such things among the circles, but no one seems want to to whistle blow because no one wants to be the evil one who sabotage the career of other pianists hence affecting your standings in the music circle.


So, accordingly, being that you're "in the field" you're guilty of condoning this type of behavior, yes?
Posted by: Elissa Milne

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 06:02 AM

I think there is a difference between condoning behaviour and enabling behaviour. Whenever any one of us presumes that the alleged victim/whistleblower is a troublemaker who is curtailing a brilliant career through their (almost certainly wrong) allegations we enable this bad behaviour.

The power relationship is so one-sided that it is almost unthinkable for a pupil to expose the inappropriate behaviour or advances of their teacher, particularly if the pupil sees this undesirable situation as the price you pay to make it to the top. And this is, time and time again, the way students who have been the target of the sexual attentions of their teachers see it - an unwelcome byproduct of their pursuit of brilliance......

I'm completely OK with rigidly enforcing the social norm that teachers do not attempt a sexual interaction with their students, and I'm vociferously OK with rigidly enforcing the social norm that adults do not engage in sexual interaction with children and underage teenagers.

At the very least, it's a bad look for someone in middle age to find themselves in Thailand having sex with a 17 year old.
Posted by: moscheles001

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 09:07 AM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
I think that's probably the case - it stands to reason that a child will be less likely to deviate from social norms when they're in an environment in which they're rigidly enforced.


But anyone who becomes a priest or minister is likely to have been brought up in an environment in which social norms were rigidly enforced.
Posted by: Brendan

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 09:29 AM

Welp:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/crimes/185701/russian-maestro-leaves-thailand-for-moscow
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 09:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Nikolas
.....being married with two children counters that pretty well....

Not really.

Don't mean about you or anyone in particular, just in general.

And if what you mean is that it "works" in Greece, we take your word for it.
Posted by: CWPiano

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 12:15 PM

Originally Posted By: stores
Originally Posted By: CWPiano
One of the issues this incident bring up is the field's apparent tolerance towards these immoral ethics. Like what some posters have pointed out, there were dodgy dealings, but no one want to come forward and expose these incidents. I am in the field and I am aware there are such things among the circles, but no one seems want to to whistle blow because no one wants to be the evil one who sabotage the career of other pianists hence affecting your standings in the music circle.


So, accordingly, being that you're "in the field" you're guilty of condoning this type of behavior, yes?


As much as I am sickened by this type of behaviour, it is not that simple to bring these teachers to justice. First you need to find willing victims who will come out of the closet and testify. Even if I whistle blow, I will not have the financial capability to fight a prolonged civil suit that will result from this. The only hope is for them to be caught in the act, like what happens to Pletnev now.
Posted by: cfwpiano

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 12:35 PM

Originally Posted By: CWPiano
I am not surprised. If you are in the field, you would have realised many male pianists are homosexuals and some have 'peculiar taste'. In general we just turn a blind eye to this, although personally I am not very sure if it is a moral thing to do.
Seriously? What an ignorant statement you just made. Being gay has nothing to do with paedophilia.
Posted by: CWPiano

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 12:39 PM

Originally Posted By: cfwpiano
Originally Posted By: CWPiano
I am not surprised. If you are in the field, you would have realised many male pianists are homosexuals and some have 'peculiar taste'. In general we just turn a blind eye to this, although personally I am not very sure if it is a moral thing to do.
Seriously? What an ignorant statement you just made. Being gay has nothing to do with paedophilia.


I am not implying that gays are paedophiles. I am okay with homosexuality, but not paedophilia. I am just illustrating that this profession has quite a high proportion of people with alternative sexual preferences, at least in the city where I stay, not sure about other places though.
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 12:45 PM

I think it's a sign of progress in Thailand that these charges are being brought into the open. But I frankly doubt they would have been if the alleged perpetrator wasn't 1) famous; 2) foreign; 3) possessing of deep pockets.

Even in a "progressive" society like the United States, such charges are often swept under the rug.

And yes, most Western societies recognize that there is a vast difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. But in other societies, pedophilia is quietly tolerated while homosexuality will get you beheaded.
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 12:48 PM

Originally Posted By: CWPiano
I am not surprised. If you are in the field, you would have realised many male pianists are homosexuals and some have 'peculiar taste'.


No, that's organists! laugh
Posted by: cfwpiano

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 12:48 PM

Originally Posted By: CWPiano
I am not implying that gays are paedophiles. I am okay with homosexuality, but not paedophilia. I am just illustrating that this profession has quite a high proportion of people with alternative sexual preferences, at least in the city where I stay, not sure about other places though.
Well, where do you live? That information matters.

I am a gay pianist, and know several gay pianists at my uni, but my teacher is straight and there are other straight male players as well. Its a tricky situation, really. Every profession has these types of problems. The education system in general, where adults are dealing with kids all the time, has pedos. But I'm sure every occupation has these problems. I just don't like the idea of people claiming that piano players are more inclined to have 'peculiar taste'. I can understand the stereotype of male players being gay; thats understandable because its very true (even though there were MANY amazing, very straight players, like Rubinstein to name only one).

I do have to say though, this news is pretty shocking. And if Pletnev is guilty he needs to face the consequences. I mean... being Russian, and owning a house in Thailand... that raises my eyebrows. Especially since that country is well known for its child sex industry. Pletnev is a wonderful pianist too, IMO. Just a shame.
Posted by: Kreisler

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 01:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Hank Drake
Even in a "progressive" society like the United States, such charges are often swept under the rug.


That's why I often think it's sad how much attention stories like these get. I would encourage everyone here in the US to look at their local sex offender registry. Most communities make addresses and photographs of registered offenders available online, and in any city of 100k or more people, I can almost guarantee that there will be at least 1 or 2 in every zip code.

Sexual abuse is a real problem. I worry that stories like this fool people into thinking it's something that mostly happens to Russian homosexuals vacationing in Thailand. It's not - it happens in Heterosexual Christian Affluent White America every day.
Posted by: Andromaque

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 02:03 PM

I know this is hearsyay, but according to my teacher, Pletnev's behavior is an open secret at the Moscow conservatory. Said teacher also was willing to bet that Pletnev will get out of these charges because he is extremely well connected. Reportedly Gorbachev himself facilitated the establishment of the Russian Natioanl Orchestra under Pletnev's direction.. Take with some salt.
I know this is quite naive, but I still have difficulty with the association of deep artistry and moral bankrupcy.. I somehow think they should be mutually exclusive.
Posted by: argerichfan

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 02:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Andromaque

I know this is quite naive, but I still have difficulty with the association of deep artistry and moral bankrupcy.. I somehow think they should be mutually exclusive.

Yes, and Robert Gutman's bio of Wagner has some very difficult moments to come to terms with.
Posted by: Peyton

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 02:27 PM

Pletnev is one of my favorite pianists so this is pretty upsetting news. If true I'm wondering how much of a difference it would make to people if it were a 14 year old girl? IMO too much importance is being placed on his supposed homosexuality. The crime here (if committed) is pedophilia.
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 02:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Andromaque
I know this is hearsyay, but according to my teacher, Pletnev's behavior is an open secret at the Moscow conservatory. Said teacher also was willing to bet that Pletnev will get out of these charges because he is extremely well connected. Reportedly Gorbachev himself facilitated the establishment of the Russian Natioanl Orchestra under Pletnev's direction.. Take with some salt.
I know this is quite naive, but I still have difficulty with the association of deep artistry and moral bankrupcy.. I somehow think they should be mutually exclusive.


That is hearsay, but hearsay often enough has its roots in reality - even though it's not admissable in court. Horowitz's sexuality (which is not otherwise connected to this, because he was never accused of consorting with minors) was rumored for decades before he was outed in print.

The heart of the issue is this: if it was known that Pletnev was engaging in sexual activity with minors while in Moscow, someone should have reported it. If someone knew and didn't report it, they are morally culpable. And I can't help feeling that if Pletnev was the conservatory janitor, rather than an eminent pianist, it would have been reported immediately.

As to the dichotomy between artistry and moral behavior (either political, sexual, or lacking in personal integrity) I can only respond:

*Alfred Cortot
*Wilhelm Furtwangler
*Walter Gieseking
*Joyce Hatto
*Elly Ney
*Josef Hofmann
*Richard Wagner

There is no correlation whatsoever, nor any reverse correlation, between personal morality and artistry. There are great and profound musicians who were, as human beings, rotten to the core. And there are mediocre musicians who were wonderful human beings. Few were both great musicians and sterling humans (William Kapell springs to mind here).
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 02:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Peyton
...I'm wondering how much of a difference it would make to people if it were a 14 year old girl? IMO too much importance is being placed on his supposed homosexuality. The crime here (if committed) is pedophilia.


True. And there is a double standard, perhaps not as pronounced as in years past, but it still exists. What, also, if it were not Mikhail Pletnev who was accused of this, but Natasha Pletnev? (Although it must be pointed out that molestation committed by females is exceedingly rare.)
Posted by: Fugue14

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 02:34 PM

There were always rumors/stories about Benjamin Britten's interest in boys--was he ever formally charged or arrested for immoral activities?
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 02:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Hank Drake
....As to the dichotomy between artistry and moral behavior (either political, sexual, or lacking in personal integrity) I can only respond:

.....*Joyce Hatto....

What 'dichotomy' was there for her????
(None, I think.) smile

BTW......I have no idea what you meant about J. Hofmann but then again I don't know a whole lot about him personally at all.
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 02:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Hank Drake
....As to the dichotomy between artistry and moral behavior (either political, sexual, or lacking in personal integrity) I can only respond:

.....*Joyce Hatto....

What 'dichotomy' was there for her????
(None, I think.) smile

BTW......I have no idea what you meant about J. Hofmann but then again I don't know a whole lot about him personally at all.


Hatto knowingly participated in passing off others' work as her own. (Just read her interviews, there's no way she didn't know about it.)

Hofmann got involved with an underage (female) pupil while at Curtis. It was swept under the rug. (A lot of old timers claim she seduced him and ruined his life, which is a good demonstration of the mentality that prevailed at the time.)
Posted by: the nosy ape

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 02:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Hank Drake
(Although it must be pointed out that molestation committed by females is exceedingly rare.)

Not so, judging by the number of female teachers going to jail for having sex with their students in the last few years.
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 02:51 PM

Originally Posted By: the nosy ape
Originally Posted By: Hank Drake
(Although it must be pointed out that molestation committed by females is exceedingly rare.)

Not so, judging by the number of female teachers going to jail for having sex with their students in the last few years.


Those are cases that get a lot of publicity because of their sensationalism and rarity, and do not reflect a statistical reality. Look at the sex offender registries of any municipality/county. They are filled with men.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 02:57 PM

Originally Posted By: cfwpiano
I just don't like the idea of people claiming that piano players are more inclined to have 'peculiar taste'.
I hate to say it, but isn't that sort of a corollary of a disproportionate number of pianists being gay and a disproportionate number of gays being paedophiles?
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 03:00 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_pianists

Looking at the above list, I don't see a disproportionate number of gays or lesbians.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 03:02 PM

Originally Posted By: moscheles001
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
I think that's probably the case - it stands to reason that a child will be less likely to deviate from social norms when they're in an environment in which they're rigidly enforced.


But anyone who becomes a priest or minister is likely to have been brought up in an environment in which social norms were rigidly enforced.
Well, true. I'd guess that in that case the explanation is that the total suppression of sexuality that comes with it is a very dangerous thing.
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 03:08 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: moscheles001
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
I think that's probably the case - it stands to reason that a child will be less likely to deviate from social norms when they're in an environment in which they're rigidly enforced.


But anyone who becomes a priest or minister is likely to have been brought up in an environment in which social norms were rigidly enforced.
Well, true. I'd guess that in that case the explanation is that the total suppression of sexuality that comes with it is a very dangerous thing.


FunkyLlama: I've been waiting for someone to say this. Bravo. You hit the nail on the head.

Is Pletnev gay? Is Pletnev a pedophile? Or, is he someone who, under societal pressure, suppressed his sexuality to the extent that it manifested itself in a very destructive way?

Sexuality is a powerful thing. What some call greed (the desire for riches and posessions) is in reality driven by a deeper desire, to find an attractive mate. Why do some people drive fancy cars, live in expensive homes, wear designer clothes - to be more desireable for mating purposes (whether it's opposite-sex or same-sex is irrelevant).
Posted by: debrucey

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 03:14 PM

I'm quite shocked that there wasn't as big a backlash against CWPiano as there should have been. He effectively stated that its morally wrong to 'turn a blind eye' to the fact that there are many pianists who are gay (as if that is something that we should be concerned about even if it is true), as well as grouping child molestation and a same-sex attraction into the same category of 'peculiar taste'. I find his comments distasteful, ignorant and offensive.
Posted by: Kreisler

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 03:20 PM

I have worked at or attended 5 different universities in five states over the years.

At these schools, there were a total of 22 piano faculty, not including myself.

Of those 22:

14 are male, 8 are female

18 are currently in heterosexual marriages

2 were openly homosexual, 1 of whom has been in a stable monogamous relationship for over 10 years

2 were heterosexual and single
Posted by: debrucey

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 03:24 PM

Sounds about right. My piano school has about 70 in it I think, and I only know of 5 who are homosexual, including myself. This doesn't strike me as being significantly above average.
I don't know of any lesbians, even though there are far more female pianists here than there are male ones.
Posted by: eweiss

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 03:36 PM

Interesting ... we in the 'New Age' music world rarely if ever hear
something like this going on. Instead, we get this:

Night in jail for New Age star Yanni on battery charges



MIAMI (AFP) - The police report says Yanni's girlfriend, Silvia Barthes, called police shortly before midnight Thursday, saying the musician had assaulted her and had locked her in the bathroom of his residence near Palm Beach, Florida... Full story (in case you want to read it) at http://www.sawfnews.com/entertainment/8653.aspx
Posted by: argerichfan

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 03:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Fugue14
There were always rumors/stories about Benjamin Britten's interest in boys--was he ever formally charged or arrested for immoral activities?

No. But that was 'then', these days it would have landed him in plenty of hot water and trashed his career. (And BTW, they weren't 'rumors'. Britten's interest in boys -which was essentially platonic- was well corroborated.)
Posted by: Ben Crosland

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 03:48 PM

Originally Posted By: debrucey
I'm quite shocked that there wasn't as big a backlash against CWPiano as there should have been. He effectively stated that its morally wrong to 'turn a blind eye' to the fact that there are many pianists who are gay (as if that is something that we should be concerned about even if it is true), as well as grouping child molestation and a same-sex attraction into the same category of 'peculiar taste'. I find his comments distasteful, ignorant and offensive.


Whilst his post did at first make me do a double-take, upon re-reading I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. He was also given the opportunity to clarify his position, which he did. I really don't think he intended his post to be interpreted the way you took it.
Posted by: cfwpiano

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 03:57 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: cfwpiano
I just don't like the idea of people claiming that piano players are more inclined to have 'peculiar taste'.
I hate to say it, but isn't that sort of a corollary of a disproportionate number of pianists being gay and a disproportionate number of gays being paedophiles?
Hmm. I guess its like, a minority of a minority of a minority, lol. So I suppose this is true.
Posted by: Nikolas

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 04:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Nikolas
.....being married with two children counters that pretty well....

Not really.

Don't mean about you or anyone in particular, just in general.

And if what you mean is that it "works" in Greece, we take your word for it.
I dunno... could be my 'greek' thinking here, but it seems to offer some kind of proof about ones sexuality!

Quote:
Even in a "progressive" society like the United States, such charges are often swept under the rug.

BTW, I'm sorry but the USA society is far from being "progressive" one!

Then again this is coming from a Greek guy (and Greece seems TO ME to be notorious Anti-American), so what would you expect?

In other words, it's SO hard to really be able to tell truth and reality from lies! wink
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 04:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Nikolas


Quote:
Even in a "progressive" society like the United States, such charges are often swept under the rug.

BTW, I'm sorry but the USA society is far from being "progressive" one!

Then again this is coming from a Greek guy (and Greece seems TO ME to be notorious Anti-American), so what would you expect?

In other words, it's SO hard to really be able to tell truth and reality from lies! wink


Yeah, well why did you think the word "progressive" was in quotes? Sarcasm.
Posted by: Nikolas

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 04:19 PM

I "did" get that, but I thought of mentioning that our perception of things could also be flawed... I am having a hard time talking about countries I've only visited for a few nights (the USA for example). I could speak about the uk, or Greece, or Germany, but about the US? :-/
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 04:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Nikolas
I "did" get that, but I thought of mentioning that our perception of things could also be flawed... I am having a hard time talking about countries I've only visited for a few nights (the USA for example). I could speak about the uk, or Greece, or Germany, but about the US? :-/


Compared to Pletnev's native land, the US is progressive (without quotation marks). Because of our system of local, state, and federal governments, (and partly because of the sheer geographic size of the US) tolerance for LGBT people varies widely depending on where one is. There are areas that are completely accepting (most of New England, the West, and some urban areas) and others where it's dangerous to be perceived as gay (most of the South, except for a few urban areas and college towns).

As an Ohioan, I see that everyday. There are parts of my state where it's bluntly not safe to be gay. But in my area, a city councilman was voted out of office because due to his anti-gay stance.
Posted by: beet31425

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 04:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Peyton
Pletnev is one of my favorite pianists so this is pretty upsetting news. If true I'm wondering how much of a difference it would make to people if it were a 14 year old girl? IMO too much importance is being placed on his supposed homosexuality. The crime here (if committed) is pedophilia.

I agree with this completely. (In fact, I was just about to make the same point.) Let's keep pedophilia and homosexuality as separate concepts, folks. Their blurring in public discourse is, when you think about it, insulting.

-J
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 04:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Hank Drake
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: moscheles001
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
I think that's probably the case - it stands to reason that a child will be less likely to deviate from social norms when they're in an environment in which they're rigidly enforced.


But anyone who becomes a priest or minister is likely to have been brought up in an environment in which social norms were rigidly enforced.
Well, true. I'd guess that in that case the explanation is that the total suppression of sexuality that comes with it is a very dangerous thing.


FunkyLlama: I've been waiting for someone to say this. Bravo. You hit the nail on the head.

Is Pletnev gay? Is Pletnev a pedophile? Or, is he someone who, under societal pressure, suppressed his sexuality to the extent that it manifested itself in a very destructive way?

Sexuality is a powerful thing. What some call greed (the desire for riches and posessions) is in reality driven by a deeper desire, to find an attractive mate. Why do some people drive fancy cars, live in expensive homes, wear designer clothes - to be more desireable for mating purposes (whether it's opposite-sex or same-sex is irrelevant).


Seems like 'passing the buck' to me.
To try and excuse a pedophile by claiming that their homosexuality is repressed - is ludicrous. It then excuses all actions. I murder random women, because society won't let me beat my wife. I go on drinking binges and drive over wheelchair occupants, because society won't let me use illegal drugs. I beat my children until they are black and blue, because my daddy hit me when I was a kid. I'm fat, becauase McDonalds makes me eat their tasty shakes every day. I have lung cancer because Marlboro forces me to purchase their cigarettes, and I'm so stupid I believed all those doctors telling me an obvious lie: smoke doesn't kill. I rape little boys, because society doesn't approve of my homosexual acts with other men.

Boo...Hoo. It must suck to not be able to adjust to society along with the rest of the human race. I suppose we should start excusing all sorts of behavior just to cater to a minority of social deviants? Almost like an unspoken threat: "Please approve of my homosexuality, or I will rape little boys. I will have no choice in the matter! Society is forcing my hand!"

By even suggesting such a connection, it supports the commonly-held view that homosexual men are prone to be pedophiles, as well. Does the argument hold up for heterosexual men? Do they rape little girls, because they are sexually repressed from being homosexuals? Not a good argument to excuse pederasty. Comparing the two, invalidates the other. Unless, of course - male homosexuals DO have a tendency to be pederasts.!

Too many people won't take responsobility for their actions in today's world - it has always been easy to blame the devil, and now that we are more atheistic we blame society - the new and improved devil. Whereas, it was the devil being a deviant, evil being influencing normally good people, not it's society being the "good", moral being not allowing deviant, "evil" behavior. Big turn-around.

Anyways, if you're familiar with history, then we should know about one famous society (or group of societies) that excused open homosexuality (the ancient Greeks, or Hellenes) and allowed it to be practiced socially. Surprisingly, even with the freedom to engage in adult-to-adult homosexual acts and relationships - pederasty was rampant and thriving, and approved of (for the most part). Obviously, if we take the argument for poor ol' Pletnev above - there should have been Zero cases of pederasty in ancient Greece. Yet, time and time again - we see in history that societies that were tolerant of homosexuality, also were known for their pederasts - whether it was Greece, Japan, China or the Arabs.

Make of that what you will..
Posted by: Damon

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 04:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Hank Drake

Sexuality is a powerful thing. What some call greed (the desire for riches and posessions) is in reality driven by a deeper desire, to find an attractive mate. Why do some people drive fancy cars, live in expensive homes, wear designer clothes - to be more desireable for mating purposes (whether it's opposite-sex or same-sex is irrelevant).


Except that gays don't mate.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Kreisler
I have worked at or attended 5 different universities in five states over the years.

At these schools, there were a total of 22 piano faculty, not including myself.

Of those 22:

14 are male, 8 are female

18 are currently in heterosexual marriages

2 were openly homosexual, 1 of whom has been in a stable monogamous relationship for over 10 years

2 were heterosexual and single


Ok, but excluding any jews, who were the best pianists, straights or gays? laugh
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Hank Drake

Sexuality is a powerful thing. What some call greed (the desire for riches and posessions) is in reality driven by a deeper desire, to find an attractive mate. Why do some people drive fancy cars, live in expensive homes, wear designer clothes - to be more desireable for mating purposes (whether it's opposite-sex or same-sex is irrelevant).


Except that gays don't mate.
Yes, but this does not fundamentally affect their psychology - they're still as much driven by libido just as anyone else. It's human nature.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Kreisler
I have worked at or attended 5 different universities in five states over the years.

At these schools, there were a total of 22 piano faculty, not including myself.

Of those 22:

14 are male, 8 are female

18 are currently in heterosexual marriages

2 were openly homosexual, 1 of whom has been in a stable monogamous relationship for over 10 years

2 were heterosexual and single


Ok, but excluding any jews, who were the best pianists, straights or gays? laugh


Well, most people give Franz Liszt that honor - and he was THE ladie's man!
Tchaikovsky, on the other hand - was not considered a good pianist.... wink
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:03 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Hank Drake

Sexuality is a powerful thing. What some call greed (the desire for riches and posessions) is in reality driven by a deeper desire, to find an attractive mate. Why do some people drive fancy cars, live in expensive homes, wear designer clothes - to be more desireable for mating purposes (whether it's opposite-sex or same-sex is irrelevant).


Except that gays don't mate.
Yes, but this does not fundamentally affect their psychology - they're still as much driven by libido just as anyone else. It's human nature.


Homosexuality is not human nature. How can you say that? I don't even think we should get into this discussion, especially if someone starts bringing up some dolphins as an extreme example.
People will most likely get angry or offended.

What Damon said is quite true, despite political correctness claiming the opposite, with absolutely no evidence that abberant sexual behavior is normal human behavior.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
To try and excuse a pedophile by claiming that their homosexuality is repressed - is ludicrous. It then excuses all actions. I murder random women, because society won't let me beat my wife. I go on drinking binges and drive over wheelchair occupants, because society won't let me use illegal drugs. I beat my children until they are black and blue, because my daddy hit me when I was a kid. I'm fat, becauase McDonalds makes me eat their tasty shakes every day. I have lung cancer because Marlboro forces me to purchase their cigarettes, and I'm so stupid I believed all those doctors telling me an obvious lie: smoke doesn't kill. I rape little boys, because society doesn't approve of my homosexual acts with other men.
Let's not equate excusing Pletnev's actions with merely trying to explain them. No one is for a minute trying to justify what he did.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:04 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Hank Drake

Sexuality is a powerful thing. What some call greed (the desire for riches and posessions) is in reality driven by a deeper desire, to find an attractive mate. Why do some people drive fancy cars, live in expensive homes, wear designer clothes - to be more desireable for mating purposes (whether it's opposite-sex or same-sex is irrelevant).


Except that gays don't mate.
Yes, but this does not fundamentally affect their psychology - they're still as much driven by libido just as anyone else. It's human nature.


I'm not driven by libido and I still like nice things.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:05 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
To try and excuse a pedophile by claiming that their homosexuality is repressed - is ludicrous. It then excuses all actions. I murder random women, because society won't let me beat my wife. I go on drinking binges and drive over wheelchair occupants, because society won't let me use illegal drugs. I beat my children until they are black and blue, because my daddy hit me when I was a kid. I'm fat, becauase McDonalds makes me eat their tasty shakes every day. I have lung cancer because Marlboro forces me to purchase their cigarettes, and I'm so stupid I believed all those doctors telling me an obvious lie: smoke doesn't kill. I rape little boys, because society doesn't approve of my homosexual acts with other men.
Let's not equate excusing Pletnev's actions with merely trying to explain them. No one is for a minute trying to justify what he did.


Yes, good point. I agree with you.
I'm not saying anyone is trying to justify his actions, but it appeared to be going in that direction.
Much modern behavior is excused on those grounds.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Hank Drake

Sexuality is a powerful thing. What some call greed (the desire for riches and posessions) is in reality driven by a deeper desire, to find an attractive mate. Why do some people drive fancy cars, live in expensive homes, wear designer clothes - to be more desireable for mating purposes (whether it's opposite-sex or same-sex is irrelevant).


Except that gays don't mate.
Yes, but this does not fundamentally affect their psychology - they're still as much driven by libido just as anyone else. It's human nature.


Homosexuality is not human nature. How can you say that? I don't even think we should get into this discussion, especially if someone starts bringing up some dolphins as an extreme example.
People will most likely get angry or offended.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was that to be driven by the libido is a fundamental aspect of human nature, and hence being gay doesn't change that.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:10 PM

Also, has anyone else found that listening to Pletnev's recordings is now an unpleasant experience? I suppose this ties into the previous discussion about separating artistic greatness and moral behaviour.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:12 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Hank Drake

Sexuality is a powerful thing. What some call greed (the desire for riches and posessions) is in reality driven by a deeper desire, to find an attractive mate. Why do some people drive fancy cars, live in expensive homes, wear designer clothes - to be more desireable for mating purposes (whether it's opposite-sex or same-sex is irrelevant).


Except that gays don't mate.
Yes, but this does not fundamentally affect their psychology - they're still as much driven by libido just as anyone else. It's human nature.


Homosexuality is not human nature. How can you say that? I don't even think we should get into this discussion, especially if someone starts bringing up some dolphins as an extreme example.
People will most likely get angry or offended.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was that to be driven by the libido is a fundamental aspect of human nature, and hence being gay doesn't change that.


Well, perhaps normal pedophillia with a sexually-mature member of the opposite sex is human nature, but not pederasty.
Social laws deem it illegal, in many nations, to engage in sexual acts with a minor - even if they are sexually mature. Human nature sees nothing wrong with this at all. I think we agree on this.

But engaging in pederasty with a sexually-mature boy is not human nature, it's considered abberant sexual behavior among humans.

I think we're getting confused on the terms. A pederast is a grown man in a sexual relationship with a younger boy. That's why I use the term - Pletnev is being accused of that, which is a bit more specific.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:14 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Also, has anyone else found that listening to Pletnev's recordings is now an unpleasant experience? I suppose this ties into the previous discussion about separating artistic greatness and moral behaviour.


No, but I won't ever pay him for the pleasure.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:14 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Also, has anyone else found that listening to Pletnev's recordings is now an unpleasant experience? I suppose this ties into the previous discussion about separating artistic greatness and moral behaviour.


Oh yes, I agree.
I find the same reaction to some composers - and not specifically because of their homosexuality, or pederasty - other aspects of their life.

Look at how Wagner was treated in Israel until recently - you couldn't even play his music because of the association with the Nazis. His anti-semitic remarks probably didn't help.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:15 PM

Has anyone read that Rachmaninoff was sexually abused as a boy by his teacher?
I came across that the other day - but have never heard it before.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Hank Drake

Sexuality is a powerful thing. What some call greed (the desire for riches and posessions) is in reality driven by a deeper desire, to find an attractive mate. Why do some people drive fancy cars, live in expensive homes, wear designer clothes - to be more desireable for mating purposes (whether it's opposite-sex or same-sex is irrelevant).


Except that gays don't mate.
Yes, but this does not fundamentally affect their psychology - they're still as much driven by libido just as anyone else. It's human nature.


Homosexuality is not human nature. How can you say that? I don't even think we should get into this discussion, especially if someone starts bringing up some dolphins as an extreme example.
People will most likely get angry or offended.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was that to be driven by the libido is a fundamental aspect of human nature, and hence being gay doesn't change that.


Well, perhaps normal pedophillia with a sexually-mature member of the opposite sex is human nature, but not pederasty.
Social laws deem it illegal, in many nations, to engage in sexual acts with a minor - even if they are sexually mature. Human nature sees nothing wrong with this at all. I think we agree on this.

But engaging in pederasty with a sexually-mature boy is not human nature, it's considered abberant sexual behavior among humans.

I think we're getting confused on the terms. A pederast is a grown man in a sexual relationship with a younger boy. That's why I use the term - Pletnev is being accused of that, which is a bit more specific.
I'm not denying that pederasty isn't human nature; I'm just saying that homosexuals, just as heterosexuals, are in general driven by human nature. Natural urges can drive a person to do something profoundly unnatural.
Posted by: eweiss

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:18 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Also, has anyone else found that listening to Pletnev's recordings is now an unpleasant experience? I suppose this ties into the previous discussion about separating artistic greatness and moral behaviour.

Interesting. I think what Roman Polanski did to that young teen girl was pretty gross but ... I really liked 'The Pianist.'

As far as normal and sexuality goes, sexuality is a lot more malleable than some would like to admit. Especially as we age, the polarity can shift as testosterone levels decrease.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:19 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
I'm not denying that pederasty isn't human nature; I'm just saying that homosexuals, just as heterosexuals, are in general driven by human nature.


Yes, in an aberrant form - they are driven by human nature. Usually, the assumption of the traits of the opposite sex, to put it simply.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:21 PM

Originally Posted By: eweiss
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Also, has anyone else found that listening to Pletnev's recordings is now an unpleasant experience? I suppose this ties into the previous discussion about separating artistic greatness and moral behaviour.

Interesting. I think what Roman Polanski did to that young teen girl was pretty gross but ... I really liked 'The Pianist.'

As far as normal and sexuality goes, sexuality is a lot more malleable than some would like to admit. Especially as we age, the polarity can shift as testosterone levels decrease.


Yes, but at that point it's no longer an issue of reproduction (mammals usually mate young and often), so the normal sexual attributes of a human are not really affected enough to make the later digressions a general rule or habit.

Speaking of Roman Polanski, I found an old newspaper at my grandmother's, one day, that has the news that Roman was wanted for the murder of Sharon Tate. I told my Grandmother that they figured out it was some guy named Charles Manson, and her newspaper was a little bit out of date!
Posted by: Damon

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo

Speaking of Roman Polanski, I found an old newspaper at my grandmother's, one day, that has the news that Roman was wanted for the murder of Sharon Tate. I told my Grandmother that they figured out it was some guy named Charles Manson, and her newspaper was a little bit out of date!


I wonder if Pletnev has ever watched "The Fearless Vampire Killers".
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Mattardo

Speaking of Roman Polanski, I found an old newspaper at my grandmother's, one day, that has the news that Roman was wanted for the murder of Sharon Tate. I told my Grandmother that they figured out it was some guy named Charles Manson, and her newspaper was a little bit out of date!


I wonder if Pletnev has ever watched "The Fearless Vampire Killers".


Heh - maybe it was all a big misunderstanding, and he was trying to drive a stake through the boy's heart. And missed. shocked

There's a movie by Polanski called Repulsion, which is pretty bizarre and entertaining. Catherine Deneuve plays a role not normally associated with her, I think.

Posted by: debrucey

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 05:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Hank Drake

Sexuality is a powerful thing. What some call greed (the desire for riches and posessions) is in reality driven by a deeper desire, to find an attractive mate. Why do some people drive fancy cars, live in expensive homes, wear designer clothes - to be more desireable for mating purposes (whether it's opposite-sex or same-sex is irrelevant).


Except that gays don't mate.
Yes, but this does not fundamentally affect their psychology - they're still as much driven by libido just as anyone else. It's human nature.


Homosexuality is not human nature. How can you say that? I don't even think we should get into this discussion, especially if someone starts bringing up some dolphins as an extreme example.
People will most likely get angry or offended.

What Damon said is quite true, despite political correctness claiming the opposite, with absolutely no evidence that abberant sexual behavior is normal human behavior.



Of course homosexuality is human nature. Thats why it appears naturally, in humans (as well as countless other species, not just dolphins). Just because only relatively small percentage of human beings are homosexual doesn't imply in the slightest that it isn't a natural state of being. This idea that we are just antiquated reproduction machines betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how nature works.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 06:02 PM

Originally Posted By: debrucey
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Hank Drake

Sexuality is a powerful thing. What some call greed (the desire for riches and posessions) is in reality driven by a deeper desire, to find an attractive mate. Why do some people drive fancy cars, live in expensive homes, wear designer clothes - to be more desireable for mating purposes (whether it's opposite-sex or same-sex is irrelevant).


Except that gays don't mate.
Yes, but this does not fundamentally affect their psychology - they're still as much driven by libido just as anyone else. It's human nature.


Homosexuality is not human nature. How can you say that? I don't even think we should get into this discussion, especially if someone starts bringing up some dolphins as an extreme example.
People will most likely get angry or offended.

What Damon said is quite true, despite political correctness claiming the opposite, with absolutely no evidence that abberant sexual behavior is normal human behavior.



Of course homosexuality is human nature. Thats why it appears naturally, in humans (as well as countless other species, not just dolphins). Just because only relatively small percentage of human beings are homosexual doesn't imply in the slightest that it isn't a natural state of being. This idea that we are just antiquated reproduction machines betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how nature works.


You are quite right. Everything that humans do is human nature because we are doing it and we are part of nature. Pedophiles are part of nature too. So Mikhail is acting naturally. I still won't buy his albums. smile
Posted by: eweiss

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 06:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Everything that humans do is human nature because we are doing it and we are part of nature.

Can't argue with that statement. Well said! smile
Posted by: debrucey

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 06:08 PM

Thats not quite what I meant, haha. And in any case I think the most important point is not whether someone is acting naturally (whatever that even means) but whether they are harming anybody. Apologies for my terse disposition, I tend to get a little hot under the collar when people talk about homosexuality like its some sort of aberration to be tolerated or pitied.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 06:27 PM

I'm always a little surprised that the question of whether things are natural comes up with such regularly, given that it's absolutely irrelevant. Flying on airplanes is unnatural. Not squatting on the floor instead of using a toilet is unnatural. In the end, whether something is natural simply doesn't matter.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 06:27 PM

Originally Posted By: debrucey
Thats not quite what I meant, haha. And in any case I think the most important point is not whether someone is acting naturally (whatever that even means) but whether they are harming anybody. Apologies for my terse disposition, I tend to get a little hot under the collar when people talk about homosexuality like its some sort of aberration to be tolerated or pitied.


There's no point in getting mad about what you can't change. I don't care if someone is homosexual but I don't want my son to be and I'm fairly certain that is the overwhelming feeling of fathers. Also, I've been married twice so I certainly don't pity you. As a matter of fact, I'm in favor of gay marriage so you can experience the horror like the rest of us. laugh
Posted by: debrucey

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 06:34 PM

If thats the overwhelming feeling of fathers then theres an overwhelming number of people who shouldn't be fathers. Luckily my own father is happy for me to fulfill my own sexual destiny however I see it, but I know many people who's lives were and still are made miserable by parents who aren't so enlightened. I certainly hope your son isn't gay, so that he'll never have to experience the feeling of not being good enough for his parents but for existing.

And of course there is point to being mad about something I can't change. I personally can't change global poverty or religious fundamentalism or incurable disease or endangered species or ridiculous oil spills but they still make me angry. That certainly is human nature.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 06:40 PM

Those overwhelming numbers of fathers have been keeping the human race alive for millions of years - so I don't think you can find too much fault with them, simply because you choose not to be one of them, and you feel they are barbaric cave-men, unenlightened savages because they don't follow the latest political fad of approving of whatever people do, simply because they choose to do it.

Just because someone's life has been made miserable, doesn't make their actions right, moral or acceptable. Plenty of people have led miserable lives because they couldn't give in to their passions or desires. That's why we have customs, traditions, and laws. So people don't give in to their desires fully, to the detriment of the rest of us.

I wasn't allowed to set my mother on fire, but I sure wanted to do so several times. God, I was so oppressed! My unenlightened parents should have let me do whatever I wanted to. Savages. Haven't they ever read Dr Spock?
Posted by: Damon

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 06:42 PM

Originally Posted By: debrucey
If thats the overwhelming feeling of fathers then theres an overwhelming number of people who shouldn't be fathers. Luckily my own father is happy for me to fulfill my own sexual destiny however I see it, but I know many people who's lives were and still are made miserable by parents who aren't so enlightened. I certainly hope your son isn't gay, so that he'll never have to experience the feeling of not being good enough for his parents but for existing.


Don't worry for my son, I will love him regardless. You assume too much from my statement.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 06:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
I wasn't allowed to set my mother on fire, but I sure wanted to do so several times.
Did... you just compared homosexuality to immolating your own mother?
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 06:52 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
I wasn't allowed to set my mother on fire, but I sure wanted to do so several times.
Did... you just compared homosexuality to immolating your own mother?


Lol - sort of.
I compared it to the idea of permissiveness that's prevalent lately: if it makes me happy, I should be allowed to do it. That's NOT a good rationale for breaking social customs that have served a purpose for thousands of years.
There seems to be a trend that anything that is traditional - should be broken. It's savage, primitive, or unenlightened - so it's no longer useful. Well, that's just not the case.

There should be better reasons for breaking taboos. And the biological excuse is entirely unfounded (I was born that way).

SO - no, I'm not comparing homosexuality to burning parents alive. Just one of the rationales.
Here's another one: I want to have sexual relations with my dog. Why not? He seems to enjoy it, and it doesn't hurt anyone. So why not? Why are people oppressing me by having that stupid tradition against besitality?

Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 06:53 PM

But we should really get back to Pletnev and his pederasty - it's something we can ALL agree was probably wrong.

At least, I think we can all agree on that... who knows... frown

Does anyone want to play devil's advocate for Pletnev? Are there any possible excuses, besides a difference in the mininum age requirement as equated to sexual maturity in our cultures?
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 06:55 PM

...and now comparing homosexuality to bestality. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't you?
Well, if we're going to discuss the morality of it, than fine:
give me an argument - yes, a proper argument, rather than a facile and insulting comparison to bestiality, or the frankly childish argument from tradition that you also presented - for why homosexuality is immoral. I, and I've no doubt others, will be more than happy to rip it to shreds.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 06:57 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
...and now comparing homosexuality to bestality. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't you?
Well, if we're going to discuss the morality of it, than fine:
give me an argument - yes, a proper argument, rather than a facile and insulting comparison to bestiality, or the frankly childish argument from tradition that you also presented - for why homosexuality is immoral. I, and I've no doubt others, will be more than happy to rip it to shreds.


You're missing my point.
Please read my post again.
I'm comparing the RATIONALE.
That's entirely, totally different.

Okay, should people be allowed to do whatever they want, no matter how anti-social it is?
Does that make it more readeable?

Please don't think that I'm blindly condeming homosexuality - I'm not. I'm pointing out that some of the common arguements FOR homosexuality do not make sense. I thought that was clear in my posts, despite my humor - however it was received.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 07:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
...and now comparing homosexuality to bestality. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't you?
Well, if we're going to discuss the morality of it, than fine:
give me an argument - yes, a proper argument, rather than a facile and insulting comparison to bestiality, or the frankly childish argument from tradition that you also presented - for why homosexuality is immoral. I, and I've no doubt others, will be more than happy to rip it to shreds.


You're missing my point.
Please read my post again.
I'm comparing the RATIONALE.
That's entirely, totally different.

Okay, should people be allowed to do whatever they want, no matter how anti-social it is?
Does that make it more readeable?
Don't try to worm out of it. You made it pretty clear that you considered it immoral.
At any rate, the rationale isn't to do with breaking taboos. It's to do with people finally becoming enlightened enough to think 'hey, maybe there's nothing wrong with it after all'. It just happens that taboos that have persisted for centuries - thanks primarily to people like you - have got in the way of that.
As for your last 'point' - no, but I think you'll find that a consensual homosexual relationship harms absolutely no one and as such is not in any sense antisocial.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 07:13 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
...and now comparing homosexuality to bestality. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't you?
Well, if we're going to discuss the morality of it, than fine:
give me an argument - yes, a proper argument, rather than a facile and insulting comparison to bestiality, or the frankly childish argument from tradition that you also presented - for why homosexuality is immoral. I, and I've no doubt others, will be more than happy to rip it to shreds.


You're missing my point.
Please read my post again.
I'm comparing the RATIONALE.
That's entirely, totally different.

Okay, should people be allowed to do whatever they want, no matter how anti-social it is?
Does that make it more readeable?
Don't try to worm out of it. You made it pretty clear that you considered it immoral.
At any rate, the rationale isn't to do with breaking taboos. It's to do with people finally becoming enlightened enough to think 'hey, maybe there's nothing wrong with it after all'. It just happens that taboos that have persisted for centuries - thanks primarily to people like you - have got in the way of that.
As for your last 'point' - no, but I think you'll find that a consensual homosexual relationship harms absolutely no one and as such is not in any sense antisocial.


So you are willing to reject thousands of years of collective human experience, simply because you personally think they were all wrong? Millions of humans got it wrong - but you get it. You're enlightened?
They were just all incredibly ignorant and stupid, and only now can their gross stupidity be lifted by the very vocal protests of certain individuals? That's very arrogant. How do you propose that it hurts nobody? You are making the claim, not me.

Must I point out the prevalance of disease among the gay community? How, statistically, 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs and have made up the largest cases of syphillis, gonorhea, hepatitis B, etc, etc.
The AIDs epidemic was most prevalent in the gay community, and spread from without to where it makes up over 50% of cases currently. Of course, many will deny this - but it's easily available from public health records, statistical studies, hospital cases, etc. Add to this the reputation and statistical findings that the gay community is very promiscous, and were very unsafe with a higher instance of multiple, non-monogamous partners - there's a recipe for disaster.

If you don't feel that's a social danger, then we have different ideas of what affects a society.
Don't blame the messenger, please.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 07:16 PM

Anyways, this is pointless - I won't argue about anymore. I said it many, many posts ago - this subject offends people on BOTH sides, not just the gay side.
So I think I'll refrain from anything else on the subject. Feel free to PM me, unless the only thing you're concerned about is defending an idea publicly.

The thread is about Pletnev..
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 07:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Hank Drake
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Hank Drake
....As to the dichotomy between artistry and moral behavior (either political, sexual, or lacking in personal integrity) I can only respond:
.....*Joyce Hatto....

What 'dichotomy' was there for her????
(None, I think.) smile
Hatto knowingly participated in passing off others' work as her own. (Just read her interviews, there's no way she didn't know about it.)

Yes, of course.
But what I meant was, what other side is there???

If there's no other side, there's no dichotomy, and I don't think there is any other side.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 07:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo

The thread is about Pletnev..


Speaking of whom, has returned to Russia today and is about to embark on a concert tour starting in Macedonia on the 12th. I guess he's not considered a flight risk.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 07:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
.....Homosexuality is not human nature.....

IMO it's not that simple.
Posted by: Kuanpiano

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 07:25 PM

...and this place isn't really the place to discuss it either.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 07:27 PM

....except that a very good discussion of it is taking place.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 07:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
So you are willing to reject thousands of years of collective human experience, simply because you personally think they were all wrong? Millions of humans got it wrong - but you get it. You're enlightened?
They were just all incredibly ignorant and stupid, and only now can their gross stupidity be lifted by the very vocal protests of certain individuals? That's very arrogant. How do you propose that it hurts nobody? You are making the claim, not me.

Must I point out the prevalance of disease among the gay community? How, statistically, 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs and have made up the largest cases of syphillis, gonorhea, hepatitis B, etc, etc.
The AIDs epidemic was most prevalent in the gay community, and spread from without to where it makes up over 50% of cases currently. Of course, many will deny this - but it's easily available from public health records, statistical studies, hospital cases, etc. Add to this the reputation and statistical findings that the gay community is very promiscous, and were very unsafe with a higher instance of multiple, non-monogamous partners - there's a recipe for disaster.

If you don't feel that's a social danger, then we have different ideas of what affects a society.
Don't blame the messenger, please.
Good grief, if I were to refuse to hold any opinion that contradicted those of millions of people I wouldn't be able to have opinions at all. I daresay we're both happy to do so by claiming the earth is round, for example. The simple fact is this: that a principle has been held collectively for a long time does not matter in the slightest. I don't care and neither should you what the billions who have come before us thought.

As for your point about STDs - we are discussing homosexuality itself, and the morality thereof; not the societal and health effects of gay sex, which is a different matter. You may as well argue that everything but asexuality is a social danger because only that way are STDs avoided, and besides, arguing that, with an overpopulation crisis looming, something that cuts down reproduction is a social danger is questionable at best.
edit: also, I'd like to add that female homosexual sex is statistically less likely to transmit HIV, so presumably lesbianism is morally superior to being a female heterosexual?
Posted by: sophial

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 07:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Peyton
Pletnev is one of my favorite pianists so this is pretty upsetting news. If true I'm wondering how much of a difference it would make to people if it were a 14 year old girl? IMO too much importance is being placed on his supposed homosexuality. The crime here (if committed) is pedophilia.


It would be equally offensive if it were a girl-- the gender of the child does not change the gravity of the offense. The issue is sexual victimization of a minor, not homosexuality. I would certainly hope that people would not see it as more acceptable to rape and molest a girl than a boy!
Posted by: CWPiano

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 07:44 PM

Originally Posted By: debrucey
I'm quite shocked that there wasn't as big a backlash against CWPiano as there should have been. He effectively stated that its morally wrong to 'turn a blind eye' to the fact that there are many pianists who are gay (as if that is something that we should be concerned about even if it is true), as well as grouping child molestation and a same-sex attraction into the same category of 'peculiar taste'. I find his comments distasteful, ignorant and offensive.


Suit yourself if you want to see it that way. I had ex teachers who were openly gay and I had no problems with that. Paedophilia is not so straightforward. It is morally wrong depends on the society you live in. In some rural Asian villages it is common for girls as young as 12 or 13 to be wed and by the time they are 14 they already became mothers. Personally I think it is morally wrong, but people who engage in them clearly think there are nothing wrong in them.

And a poster mentioned people who do not report these paedophilic pianists are morally culpable as well. As what I have said, it is not as simple as that. You need solid proof like say some photographs or videos or victims' testimonies. Otherwise you will be embroiled in a nasty and costly civil defamation suit.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 07:46 PM

Originally Posted By: CWPiano

And a poster mentioned people who do not report these paedophilic pianists are morally culpable as well. As what I have said, it is not as simple as that. You need solid proof like say some photographs or videos or victims' testimonies. Otherwise you will be embroiled in a nasty and costly civil defamation suit.
Isn't it possible to give the police an anonymous tip-off?
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 08:03 PM

Originally Posted By: sophial
Originally Posted By: Peyton
Pletnev is one of my favorite pianists so this is pretty upsetting news. If true I'm wondering how much of a difference it would make to people if it were a 14 year old girl? IMO too much importance is being placed on his supposed homosexuality. The crime here (if committed) is pedophilia.


It would be equally offensive if it were a girl-- the gender of the child does not change the gravity of the offense. The issue is sexual victimization of a minor, not homosexuality. I would certainly hope that people would not see it as more acceptable to rape and molest a girl than a boy!


Technically, the age of consent in Thailand is 15 - not too far from 14. If a culture is allowing 15 year olds to have sex, they might as well allow 14 year olds: it's not like there's a huge mental gap involved. Many cultures really don't concern themselves with the mental aspects of the people involved - they have historically seen it as a necesarry survival tactic: females of mating age should mate as soon as possible, whether they are mentally ready or not.

We live in a society where sexual maturity is equated with financial maturity on the part of the male, or at least legal maturity. The industrial revolution has changed our sexual views on when the age of consent should be. There's nothing inherently wrong about a 14 year old reproducing - we have just made it immoral because of how we prolong 'coming of age'. We don't really have to worry about early death and other factors - so we can easily extend this to 18 years of age, in most cases. In many cultures, boys were men as soon as they were able.

Along with the pedophile nature of what Pletnev did, the pederasty definately makes it much worse in the eyes of many people.
Posted by: stores

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 08:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
...and now comparing homosexuality to bestality. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't you?
Well, if we're going to discuss the morality of it, than fine:
give me an argument - yes, a proper argument, rather than a facile and insulting comparison to bestiality, or the frankly childish argument from tradition that you also presented - for why homosexuality is immoral. I, and I've no doubt others, will be more than happy to rip it to shreds.


You're missing my point.
Please read my post again.
I'm comparing the RATIONALE.
That's entirely, totally different.

Okay, should people be allowed to do whatever they want, no matter how anti-social it is?
Does that make it more readeable?
Don't try to worm out of it. You made it pretty clear that you considered it immoral.
At any rate, the rationale isn't to do with breaking taboos. It's to do with people finally becoming enlightened enough to think 'hey, maybe there's nothing wrong with it after all'. It just happens that taboos that have persisted for centuries - thanks primarily to people like you - have got in the way of that.
As for your last 'point' - no, but I think you'll find that a consensual homosexual relationship harms absolutely no one and as such is not in any sense antisocial.


So you are willing to reject thousands of years of collective human experience, simply because you personally think they were all wrong? Millions of humans got it wrong - but you get it. You're enlightened?
They were just all incredibly ignorant and stupid, and only now can their gross stupidity be lifted by the very vocal protests of certain individuals? That's very arrogant. How do you propose that it hurts nobody? You are making the claim, not me.

Must I point out the prevalance of disease among the gay community? How, statistically, 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs and have made up the largest cases of syphillis, gonorhea, hepatitis B, etc, etc.
The AIDs epidemic was most prevalent in the gay community, and spread from without to where it makes up over 50% of cases currently. Of course, many will deny this - but it's easily available from public health records, statistical studies, hospital cases, etc. Add to this the reputation and statistical findings that the gay community is very promiscous, and were very unsafe with a higher instance of multiple, non-monogamous partners - there's a recipe for disaster.

If you don't feel that's a social danger, then we have different ideas of what affects a society.
Don't blame the messenger, please.


Wow. Why am I not surprised by this?
Posted by: CWPiano

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 08:33 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: CWPiano

And a poster mentioned people who do not report these paedophilic pianists are morally culpable as well. As what I have said, it is not as simple as that. You need solid proof like say some photographs or videos or victims' testimonies. Otherwise you will be embroiled in a nasty and costly civil defamation suit.
Isn't it possible to give the police an anonymous tip-off?


I doubt police will act unless they have definite proof of the act. Definitely you need at least a victim to report. I remembered there was a case here last year of a tuition (not piano )teacher who molested his students. It was a parent that reported the incident before the other victims came out of the closet. The shocking thing is many of this teacher's students actually banded to protect the teacher and even accused the victims of trying to smear the reputation of the teacher. The outcome is the teacher was convicted ( I think over 10 victims gave testimonies ).
Posted by: Canonie

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 08:36 PM

unfortunately redheadedness is also quite a health risk in this country as it's very sunny here. Redheads are a minority group who claim that they were born this way. But it's not natural because they comprise such a small percentage and have health risks. That's the argument right?

A previous poster said "I'm pointing out that some of the common arguements FOR homosexuality do not make sense."
I am speechless... I am on another planet, in a heterogenous society and lead by a redheaded prime minister.

Being gay is not that bad, Really! If your daughters or sons are gay they can still have a wonderful life. And don't ruin your own life by trying to change something that can't be changed. I am sad for these fathers too.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 08:40 PM

Originally Posted By: CWPiano
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: CWPiano

And a poster mentioned people who do not report these paedophilic pianists are morally culpable as well. As what I have said, it is not as simple as that. You need solid proof like say some photographs or videos or victims' testimonies. Otherwise you will be embroiled in a nasty and costly civil defamation suit.
Isn't it possible to give the police an anonymous tip-off?


I doubt police will act unless they have definite proof of the act. Definitely you need at least a victim to report. I remembered there was a case here last year of a tuition (not piano )teacher who molested his students. It was a parent that reported the incident before the other victims came out of the closet. The shocking thing is many of this teacher's students actually banded to protect the teacher and even accused the victims of trying to smear the reputation of the teacher. The outcome is the teacher was convicted ( I think over 10 victims gave testimonies ).
I'm sure they wouldn't just discard a tip-off altogether without any investigation - take the Pletnev case for example:
'"We received a tip-off from a detained Thai man who is involved in a prostitution ring. And we received more information from the child's parents, the child himself and other witnesses," Police Lieutenant-Colonel Omsin Sukkanka said.'
Posted by: eweiss

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 09:00 PM

And now, for your viewing pleasure, Mr. Macho man himself...



Liberace! Not bad. Not bad at all. smile
Posted by: CWPiano

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 09:23 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: CWPiano
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: CWPiano

And a poster mentioned people who do not report these paedophilic pianists are morally culpable as well. As what I have said, it is not as simple as that. You need solid proof like say some photographs or videos or victims' testimonies. Otherwise you will be embroiled in a nasty and costly civil defamation suit.
Isn't it possible to give the police an anonymous tip-off?


I doubt police will act unless they have definite proof of the act. Definitely you need at least a victim to report. I remembered there was a case here last year of a tuition (not piano )teacher who molested his students. It was a parent that reported the incident before the other victims came out of the closet. The shocking thing is many of this teacher's students actually banded to protect the teacher and even accused the victims of trying to smear the reputation of the teacher. The outcome is the teacher was convicted ( I think over 10 victims gave testimonies ).
I'm sure they wouldn't just discard a tip-off altogether without any investigation - take the Pletnev case for example:
'"We received a tip-off from a detained Thai man who is involved in a prostitution ring. And we received more information from the child's parents, the child himself and other witnesses," Police Lieutenant-Colonel Omsin Sukkanka said.'


That is not exactly a tip-off, you know. Most likely the Thai man made a deal with the police in exchange for possibly lesser sentences. I mean you can't seriously expect to walk into a police station and proclaim one of the local piano teachers is a paedophile and expect them to raid the studio based on just a stranger's accusation right?
Posted by: Schubertian

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 09:27 PM

Quote:
The thread is about Pletnev..


Ha ha - too funny - after calling gay people inhuman, aberrant, abnormal, offensive, irresponsible, immoral, unacceptable, arrogant, comparable to murders, wife-beaters, mother-burners, drunks, smokers, fat people, having a 'tendency to paederastry' (what does that mean?), socially dangerous - -
now he doesn't want to discuss it and has run off to his closet - -

where to start? It makes my dizzy head spin.
Posted by: Schubertian

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 09:40 PM

Quote:
Sad to say, the reputation we have is out there - most people assume pianists are gay and effeminate (after all - playing the piano is not football!), limp-wristed or long-haired-type.


Ha ha - this kills me too - what century are we in now? Limp wrists and long hair? I'm speechless for once. That quote all by itself and without any help invalidates everything this guy has to say.
Posted by: PianoDude2010

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 09:47 PM

When I originally saw the post on Pletnev, I figured the conversation would quickly move from "pedophiles" to "homosexuals," with a neat equation of the two, but hoped I'd be wrong; I'm disappointed to see that I was right. For shame.
Posted by: Elissa Milne

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 10:40 PM

.
Posted by: abcdefgh

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 11:01 PM

You know... for a group of such intelligent individuals...

Some peoples views on homosexuality is absolutely moronic.

Some of you should just stick to discussing Beethoven. Your views on other topics make you appear like small minded bigots.
Posted by: wdot

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 11:12 PM

Several anecdotal points, probably unrelated.

1) At my university, 3 of the 4 piano professors were unquestionably gay. Including mine. He never bothered me at all, other than by insisting that I practice more. He was a great fellow. He died of AIDS in the late 1980s. Around the same time as a number of his friends, many of whom I knew and valued as friends. I never heard that any of the gay professors had any kind of relationship other than professional with any of their students.

The fourth professor was a randy jerk, well known for hitting on female students. He was my least favorite of the bunch.

2) As a youngster (around 12), I played for a terrific concert artist, who concluded that I had real talent. While he thought that my teacher had done a great job, he suggested some prominent teachers within driving distance who could really push me. He really liked his first choice, but he did tell my parents, in so many words, that I should not be left alone with him. I was a complete innocent at the time, but I do remember the expression on my mother's face. I never asked my parents what he meant, but I figured it out a couple of years later.

3) My daughters studied for years with a gay fellow. I would have been happy to have had sons study with him. He had many male students, including young teens, and they all thought the world of him. As did their parents, and these were not the kind of people to be unaware of these concerns.
Posted by: Schubertian

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 11:18 PM

thanks for sharing wdot - just imagine! gay men who didn't bother you and who didn't molest their students! and examples to prove it -
Posted by: Elissa Milne

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 11:20 PM

Originally Posted By: bryanw
You know... for a group of such intelligent individuals...

Some peoples views on homosexuality is absolutely moronic.

Some of you should just stick to discussing Beethoven. Your views on other topics make you appear like small minded bigots.

+1

This thread has meandered into some bizarre territory.

Homosexuality is no more unnatural than red hair. Why this is even being raised as a component of the conversation is beyond me.

Having sex with children is wrong, and can be argued as such from any number of angles. Teenagers are on the cusp of adulthood, and this is where society struggles to create boundaries, or where one society defines appropriate behaviour differently to another.

This discussion has at times bewildered the element in the story that is problematic: it is illegal in Thailand to have sex with a minor. I think we would all agree that this is also an immoral activity. The immorality is about the age difference, with respect to the extreme youth of the younger party, along with a whiff of exploitation in a 'rich-man-poor-boy' sense as well.

This kind of exploitative sexual behaviour is known to take place in pianistic circles, maybe not more than in society generally, but that does not change the fact that many of us are aware of these instances and where the perpetrator has not been held accountable for their actions. This comes down to the difficulty faced by the powerless party to hold the powerful party accountable, to see a court case through, to expose what is commonly known, and so forth. The personal consequences of the abuse are often compounded by revealing publicly that the abuse has taken place.

It would be nice to think that our profession held itself to a higher standard than society generally, and that there were ways we could rigidly enforce a social norm of not having sex with minors.
Posted by: Schubertian

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 11:29 PM

Quote:
Boo...Hoo. It must suck to not be able to adjust to society along with the rest of the human race. I suppose we should start excusing all sorts of behavior just to cater to a minority of social deviants? Almost like an unspoken threat: "Please approve of my homosexuality, or I will rape little boys. I will have no choice in the matter! Society is forcing my hand!"


Hey - guess what? - gay people don't think like this. M - your ideas are too pedestrian, too uninteresting to even refute. But for the good of your soul, as an exercise, you should refute them yourself. And start with this premise: gay people are just average joes and jills, just like anyone else - tax paying, responsible adults who don't want pity or 'permission' or scolding or boring hand wringing. We pretty much just want to be left alone to live our own lives without being fired or beaten up or witch hunted or evicted or otherwise slammed around.

THis is my swan song to Piano Forums. I've got better things to do with my precious time than spend it reading trash like this.
Posted by: Kreisler

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 11:29 PM

The thread has started a (somewhat predictable) downhill slide. I'm off to bed now, but if the discussion continues on it's current trajectory, I'll likely close it tomorrow to keep the peace.

g'night all!
Posted by: Doctor Ivory

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 11:30 PM

Just to clarify a point . . . Homosexuality is fundamentally biological, it is not a choice in any rational sense and, in light of the scientific evidence that has been accumulating for the past 40 years, it can in no way be regarded as a moral issue in contemporary society. Pedophilia on the other hand is a potentially harmful psychological disorder completely distinct from homosexuality, which is not a mental disorder. I can provide numerous scientific data to back all this up. Just say the word and I will post the sources.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 11:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Kreisler
The thread has started a (somewhat predictable) downhill slide.....

Yes -- and it's a shame. For a while it was a pretty high-level discussion of tough issues.
Posted by: beet31425

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/08/10 11:37 PM

Originally Posted By: bryanw
You know... for a group of such intelligent individuals...

Some peoples views on homosexuality is absolutely moronic.

Some of you should just stick to discussing Beethoven. Your views on other topics make you appear like small minded bigots.


At least it's heartening that the number of small-minded bigots unearthed by this thread is small. Looking on the bright side.

-J
Posted by: argerichfan

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 12:12 AM

Originally Posted By: beet31425
Originally Posted By: bryanw
You know... for a group of such intelligent individuals...

Some peoples views on homosexuality is absolutely moronic.

Some of you should just stick to discussing Beethoven. Your views on other topics make you appear like small minded bigots.


At least it's heartening that the number of small-minded bigots unearthed by this thread is small. Looking on the bright side.

-J

We can always look on the bright side. The trajectory of this thread has not particularly surprised me, but it has been interesting to follow. The thread need not be closed if folks remain civil. And to the social liberals (of which I am one): this isn't really the proper venue, is it? We need to chill out.

Let the conservatives show their true colours.
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 12:29 AM

This thread is sad. Makes me realize exactly which members here are compete morons. Oh well..
Posted by: Andromaque

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 01:06 AM

Originally Posted By: argerichfan



We can always look on the bright side. The trajectory of this thread has not particularly surprised me, but it has been interesting to follow. The thread need not be closed if folks remain civil. And to the social liberals (of which I am one): this isn't really the proper venue, is it? We need to chill out.

Let the conservatives show their true colours.


well said.

I started to respond to some schocking statements in this thread on a few occasions but was too discouraged to bother really.
Mattardo, open your mind's eyes. Your arguments are anachronistic to say the least. The world has moved on.
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 01:34 AM

Originally Posted By: theJourney
Horowitz did famously say however that as far as he was concerned there are only three kinds of pianists: gay pianists, Jewish pianists or bad pianists.


Antiquated and a little naive sounding, to my ears. To say nothing of ethnocentric, sexist, culture-centric . . .

There are only two kinds of people in this world: people who try to separate the world into kinds of people, and people who don't.

cool wink
Posted by: Nikolas

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 01:36 AM

If you think about it, the members offering such AMAZINGLY limited views are very... few. I could count maybe two, and I can only remember the name of one member, right of the bat (sp?)!

The % seem to be quite nice. If only 2 members openely offer such offensive views, it means that they count for less than the 2% of the general posters in here!

Never mind then?

There's always going to be people who will think they are trying to rationalize something, only to polute it with fear, and hatred!

So never mind...

Many of my good friends and co-workers are gay and I have little trouble with them. In fact I largely prefer their company than those of 'football fan/ beer drinking/ awful driving' mentality! wink
Posted by: Elene

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 02:05 AM

To reply to whomever it was that said marrying off young teens, who then become mothers by age 14 or so, is just a matter of culture and not wrong in any absolute sense:

The problem is that all too often very young mothers die in childbirth, and often their babies die as well. There is also a horribly high rate of obstetric fistulas in such girls (look it up if you don't know what that is). Just because they are biologically able to conceive doesn't mean they are biologically able to manage a pregnancy. Fortunately, this issue is getting a lot more attention lately, and in the countries where child brides are common, the practice is being discouraged.

About Pletnev, well, the truth will come out somehow or other (I hope), and our opinions won't matter.

Elene
(student of a gay guy who's a perfect gentleman)
Posted by: wr

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 05:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Schubertian

THis is my swan song to Piano Forums. I've got better things to do with my precious time than spend it reading trash like this.


Don't go. Don't let the ignorant bigots win. I agree with your feelings, and that amazingly offensive stuff should have been stopped earlier (and what is left should get deleted), but still, you are infinitely more valuable to us than that twaddle. And note that although the medieval one with the ignorant issues did lots of postings, the actual numbers of people who are more reasonable, educated, and humane is much much larger.
Posted by: wr

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 05:19 AM

Originally Posted By: beet31425


At least it's heartening that the number of small-minded bigots unearthed by this thread is small. Looking on the bright side.



That is a good point.
Posted by: ChopinAddict

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 05:56 AM

I am off to bed too (well, with my laptop to do some work smile ), and really hope that either this thread has gone back on track by tomorrow morning or that it has been closed. blush
Posted by: wr

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 05:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Nikolas
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Nikolas
.....being married with two children counters that pretty well....

Not really.

Don't mean about you or anyone in particular, just in general.

And if what you mean is that it "works" in Greece, we take your word for it.
I dunno... could be my 'greek' thinking here, but it seems to offer some kind of proof about ones sexuality!



It really doesn't offer proof of anything. I know a couple of men who fathered children (and who are now grandfathers, incidentally) who identify themselves as being gay. The fact that they were able to have sex with a woman doesn't mean that it was their main sexual interest and desire.

This reminds me of a Catholic guy in a small town I where I used to live. He was married and had five children before he faced up to the fact that something was really wrong, and that he was mainly sexually interested in other men. He did something interesting; he tried to file a lawsuit to get the Catholic Church to pay child support, on the grounds that they had brainwashed him into assuming he was straight and having all those kids. The case was tossed, but probably more because of lack of good legal representation and money than anything else. I talked to him about it once, and think he was quite sincere about it.

Sexuality seems to be far more flexible that the labels currently being used to describe it. Some people did a study of the sexual practices of migrant farm workers (all men) in the part of the world where I live. They found that a large majority were having sex with each other, even though when at home, they were with their wives. And interestingly, depending on what they actually did, some denied it was even homosexual, in spite of the physical facts.
Posted by: currawong

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 07:06 AM

Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: Schubertian
THis is my swan song to Piano Forums. I've got better things to do with my precious time than spend it reading trash like this.
Don't go. Don't let the ignorant bigots win. I agree with your feelings, and that amazingly offensive stuff should have been stopped earlier (and what is left should get deleted), but still, you are infinitely more valuable to us than that twaddle. And note that although the medieval one with the ignorant issues did lots of postings, the actual numbers of people who are more reasonable, educated, and humane is much much larger.
+1
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 07:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Schubertian
Quote:
Boo...Hoo. It must suck to not be able to adjust to society along with the rest of the human race. I suppose we should start excusing all sorts of behavior just to cater to a minority of social deviants? Almost like an unspoken threat: "Please approve of my homosexuality, or I will rape little boys. I will have no choice in the matter! Society is forcing my hand!"


Hey - guess what? - gay people don't think like this. M - your ideas are too pedestrian, too uninteresting to even refute. But for the good of your soul, as an exercise, you should refute them yourself. And start with this premise: gay people are just average joes and jills, just like anyone else - tax paying, responsible adults who don't want pity or 'permission' or scolding or boring hand wringing. We pretty much just want to be left alone to live our own lives without being fired or beaten up or witch hunted or evicted or otherwise slammed around.

THis is my swan song to Piano Forums. I've got better things to do with my precious time than spend it reading trash like this.


If you had bothered to read what this was in response to, you would have noticed I was dismissing this argument that was made by another poster.
I very clearly stated that a pederast should not be seen as a homosexual reacting against discrimination!
Posted by: izaldu

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 07:38 AM

I am not scandalized by anybody's views. Few things scandalize me anymore, let alone opinions.

Having said this, homosexuality is natural, as natural as drinking water, having blond hair, having big hands or schizophrenia. Is schizophrenia not natural? Please.

I am very disappointed that homosexuality was thrown into the discussion almost from minute one. We were talking paedophilia. By the way, i am a heterosexual.

Sad state of things. Can't say i didn't see this one coming though.
Posted by: Peyton

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 07:48 AM

Schubertian, Read through the posts again and I think you will see that the majority here would agree with what you say (I do). Just as in society (and this is a little microcosm of society) there will always be some folks with opposite views, some more outspoken and closed minded than others. It's really a shame that there are folks here that are determined to make the Pletnev issue into a "homosexual" issue rather than what it is, a possible case of pedophilia. A discussion of homosexuality, the morals, it's place in music etc. should be a separate thread (and I suspect a thread that wouldn't live long).

I hope you reconsider your "swan song". And then again, this is just a forum and not really worth getting too heated over. We have enough to deal with with in the real world. smile
Posted by: moscheles001

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 08:31 AM

Originally Posted By: currawong
Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: Schubertian
THis is my swan song to Piano Forums. I've got better things to do with my precious time than spend it reading trash like this.
Don't go. Don't let the ignorant bigots win. I agree with your feelings, and that amazingly offensive stuff should have been stopped earlier (and what is left should get deleted), but still, you are infinitely more valuable to us than that twaddle. And note that although the medieval one with the ignorant issues did lots of postings, the actual numbers of people who are more reasonable, educated, and humane is much much larger.
+1


++1
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 09:23 AM

Oh, my. What's been going on here in the last 17 hours?

Ah, well. At least it's a distraction from the Lebron James fiasco.
Posted by: Kreisler

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 09:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Hank Drake
Oh, my. What's been going on here in the last 17 hours?


The usual. wink
Posted by: moscheles001

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 09:55 AM

To quote my mother: "We just can't have nice things, can we?"
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 09:55 AM

Originally Posted By: charleslang
Originally Posted By: theJourney
Horowitz did famously say however that as far as he was concerned there are only three kinds of pianists: gay pianists, Jewish pianists or bad pianists.


Antiquated and a little naive sounding, to my ears. To say nothing of ethnocentric, sexist, culture-centric . . .

There are only two kinds of people in this world: people who try to separate the world into kinds of people, and people who don't.

cool wink
Don't you think that was most probably said with tongue firmly in cheek?

On an unrelated note, +1 again to the 'don't go Schubertian' crowd. It would be a shame to be put off by what really is a tiny minority.
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 09:58 AM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: charleslang
Originally Posted By: theJourney
Horowitz did famously say however that as far as he was concerned there are only three kinds of pianists: gay pianists, Jewish pianists or bad pianists.


Antiquated and a little naive sounding, to my ears. To say nothing of ethnocentric, sexist, culture-centric . . .

There are only two kinds of people in this world: people who try to separate the world into kinds of people, and people who don't.

cool wink
Don't you think that was most probably said with tongue firmly in cheek?



Completely tongue-in-cheek. Rachmaninoff was neither Jewish nor gay, but Horowitz revered him.
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 11:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Hank Drake
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: charleslang
Originally Posted By: theJourney
Horowitz did famously say however that as far as he was concerned there are only three kinds of pianists: gay pianists, Jewish pianists or bad pianists.


Antiquated and a little naive sounding, to my ears. To say nothing of ethnocentric, sexist, culture-centric . . .

There are only two kinds of people in this world: people who try to separate the world into kinds of people, and people who don't.

cool wink
Don't you think that was most probably said with tongue firmly in cheek?



Completely tongue-in-cheek. Rachmaninoff was neither Jewish nor gay, but Horowitz revered him.


Maybe that can excuse it, but I don't understand the humor. Just speaking honestly.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 11:14 AM

OK, let's take the challenge of explaining a joke -- rarely easy.

He happened to notice (as I think would have been impossible not to notice, if you were in that crowd) that at the time, a great many top pianists were Jewish, and many others were gay -- and especially because he was both, and probably also to tweak some very fine pianists of his acquaintance who were neither Jewish nor gay, he made an exaggeration out of it.

(OK, not a great explanation, but I said it wasn't easy......) ha

P.S. I think it was a great and hilarious joke.
BTW....Are there any other (arguably) great funny lines attributed to Horowitz?? I don't think so.....

edit: I googled, and got reminded of this other one (which I don't think is that great, because I don't think it was particularly true, and IMO this one doesn't work if it wasn't):

"My face is my passport."

....as well as this other one, which IS funny but probably wasn't intended to be:

"My future is in my past and my past is my present. I must now make the present my future."
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 11:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
BTW....Are there any other (arguably) great funny lines attributed to Horowitz?? I don't think so.....



"When I go onstage, I want to make sure everything is perfect. I check all the details, to make sure my shoes are tied, to make sure my fly is closed. If they are open they are terrible."

"Scarlatti is the master of Grosse Kleinkunst, which is preferable to Kleine Grosskunst."
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 11:28 AM

LOL.....even without knowing that line (as I didn't), don't most of us have dreams where we're out there playing the piano, and we realize we forgot to put our clothes on.....
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 11:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
. . . probably also to tweak some very fine pianists of his acquaintance who were neither Jewish nor gay, he made an exaggeration out of it.


That was my original interpretation of it. I'm sure it's fun to push the 'pendulum' the other way, since there has been so much historical oppression of both groups. But I still just don't approve of any group talk. For all the enlightenment in this thread, may I remind that it's a truism that humor is not any excuse.
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 12:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
So you are willing to reject thousands of years of collective human experience, simply because you personally think they were all wrong? Millions of humans got it wrong - but you get it. You're enlightened?
They were just all incredibly ignorant and stupid, and only now can their gross stupidity be lifted by the very vocal protests of certain individuals? That's very arrogant. How do you propose that it hurts nobody? You are making the claim, not me.


Hey, Rettardo, how do you possibly know it was thousands of years of collective human experience? Did you ever think that maybe people were too afraid to admit such things? Come on, even a common 10 year old knows our basic human history. I'm sure you do too.

On a side note, I guess Tchaikovsky was a moron, pretending to be gay when he really wasn't. Because it's not human nature. Oh and gay people DELIBERATELY act gay, just so that they date a sex they don't really like anyway. Would you willingly date another guy? Just out of spite, or out of - I don't know what, you make it up. Hey, you know what, tonight instead of spending the night with my boyfriend, I'm going to head to a bar and chat up some girls. If I'm lucky enough, maybe one of them will come home with me!
Posted by: Kreisler

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 12:12 PM

What's the date of Horowitz's joke? Is it possible it had something to do with the war? (A bit of a jab to the Nazi's, who believed in purging the arts of impurity along with the population?)

Regardless, Jews have made an enormous contribution to musical culture, and not just classical. 50% of academy awards for best original song from a group who comprises about 2% of the population?

http://www.jinfo.org/Pianists.html

http://www.jinfo.org/Music.html
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 12:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
So you are willing to reject thousands of years of collective human experience, simply because you personally think they were all wrong? Millions of humans got it wrong - but you get it. You're enlightened?


Aside from the fact that an argument from tradition is fallacious (why not use this argument in favor of slavery in 1850?), it's false that homosexuality has been consistently rejected in history.

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
How do you propose that it hurts nobody? You are making the claim, not me.


The burden of proof is on the person who wants to reject homosexuality. If we have no data either way, the burden of proof is on the one who makes an affirmative claim -- and that's you in this case.

I guess you've cited some evidence about STDs and so on. There might be some truth to that (I really don't know enough to say for sure), but remember that we generally allow people to live their lives recklessly, if they like, in other ways (legal drugs, risky extreme sports etc.). And, more importantly, any evidence about STDs is evidence against promiscuity and not homosexuality proper. It might justify a public awareness campaign in gay bars or in school.
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 12:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Kreisler
What's the date of Horowitz's joke? Is it possible it had something to do with the war? (A bit of a jab to the Nazi's, who believed in purging the arts of impurity along with the population?)

Regardless, Jews have made an enormous contribution to musical culture, and not just classical. 50% of academy awards for best original song from a group who comprises about 2% of the population?

http://www.jinfo.org/Pianists.html

http://www.jinfo.org/Music.html


That remark by Horowitz can be traced back to the late-1940s - a time when he was separated from Wanda and spending a lot of time in California (where he was a regular at George Cukor's parties).



But even when he was back together with Wanda, he would pipe up with remarks such as "The homosexuals will save the world" (in response to a rant from Wanda about the Catholic Church's position on birth control).
Posted by: jdhampton924

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 12:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Nikolas
If you think about it, the members offering such AMAZINGLY limited views are very... few. I could count maybe two, and I can only remember the name of one member, right of the bat (sp?)!

The % seem to be quite nice. If only 2 members openely offer such offensive views, it means that they count for less than the 2% of the general posters in here!


Oh, that is only because I have not gotten a cracked at this subject!!

All kidding aside, it looks like I missed an entertaining discussion going on. To bad I was practicing when it was going on.

I myself sadly feel a bit ashamed, I was more entertained with what was being said back and forth. As for pletnev, he probably will not have to deal with the charges and such. I will be honest I never listened to him that much, so did not have much of an opinion on him as a pianist. It is kind of difficult now to listen to him knowing anything I think will be a bit tainted.
Posted by: Hank Drake

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 12:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo

Here's another one: I want to have sexual relations with my dog. Why not? He seems to enjoy it, and it doesn't hurt anyone. So why not? Why are people oppressing me by having that stupid tradition against besitality?



What you do with your dog is up to you. But stay away from mine.

Posted by: JonBrom

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 12:31 PM

Let's face it: playing the piano well requires a certain sensitivity of soul, which in males is usually supressed by a culture that sees this as "sissy" (this is changing) with the result that nominally heterosexual boys are dissuaded from music and the "arts" in general. So of course the pool of male musicians is skewed "gayward."

Incidentally, the last fistfight I got into (30 years ago) was at a party where a drunk jock-type loudly questioned my sexuality while I was discussing classical music with some girls. He lost.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 12:37 PM

Sorry, but I need a a Rick Santorum moment...... ha
Posted by: jtattoo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 12:41 PM

Hank What a great picture of your dog!!!! Finally this thread has regained something worthwhile to discuss........................I would have locked this thread a long time ago when the discussion became distasteful to say the least. Let the trolls return to their rocks.
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 12:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Sorry, but I need a a Rick Santorum moment...... ha


To me, it's especially funny in that ad how borderline-vulgar the choice of language is - using 'on' for example between "man on dog".

I think the mindset comes from just not having a category in one's mind for a grown-up homosexual relationship. Homosexuality is 'man on man' or nothing at all, in that mind.
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 12:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Hank Drake

Hey, you sure that's legal?
Posted by: timbo77

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 12:53 PM

What I find surprising is that this thread began with comments speculating on what Pletnev may or may not have done, then descending into arguments about homosexuality and paedophilia, before FunkyLlama stated in reference to the allegations that Pletnev has engaged in paedophilia that "no-one is for a minute trying to justify what he did"; and "has anyone else found that listening to Pletnev's recordings is now an unpleasant experience...".

Pletnev has not been convicted of any offence. He is (in Thailand, like many places in the world) innocent until proven guilty. One can cite unsubstantiated rumours about what he gets up to in Moscow, or speculate why he owns a property in Thailand, but unless and until he admits to wrongful behaviour or is convicted of such, it is totally inappopriate to be asserting as fact that he is guilty of paedophilia. The limited reported evidence giving rise to the charge hardly constitutes evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly if you are in any way familiar with the political, social and cultural dynamics of Asia; it is certainly not unknown in some countries in this part of the world for people to be charged for reasons not linked to someone's innocence or guilt.

Pletnev could have done something wrong; but it is also possible that he did not. Who is anyone on this forum to form an assessment based on the limited reported information? If vindicated, I can only hope that FunkyLlama's experience of listening to Pletnev recordings improves as quickly as it deteriorated; but one thing's for sure, I would never want him/her on a jury charged with establishing my innocence or guilt!
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 01:01 PM

Originally Posted By: timbo77
I can only hope that FunkyLlama's experience of listening to Pletnev recordings improves as quickly as it deteriorated; but one thing's for sure, I would never want him/her on a jury charged with establishing my innocence or guilt!


I think that's really unfair to FunkyLlama. It's not wrong to form our opinions of people based on less evidence than that required to convict someone in court. And there's no reason to think FunkyLllama wouldn't have as high standards as anyone else if placed on a jury.

Actually, the requirements are explicit, at least in the US for criminal cases it is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. That is much stronger than 'more likely than not', which is a reasonable standard for changing your opinion of someone, and in Pletnev's case, from what we've heard, not inapplicable.
Posted by: BruceD

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 01:29 PM

Originally Posted By: timbo77
[...] If vindicated, I can only hope that FunkyLlama's experience of listening to Pletnev recordings improves as quickly as it deteriorated;[...]


On both intellectual and emotional levels, I don't quite see how an artist's private-life-made-public influences my opinion of his recordings. Why, because of his alleged activities - as yet not fully substantiated - should the recording I admired last week now be abhorrent or unlistenable to me? It's still the same recording, and I still like it for the same reasons I liked it last week.

Regards,
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 02:08 PM

Originally Posted By: BruceD
Originally Posted By: timbo77
[...] If vindicated, I can only hope that FunkyLlama's experience of listening to Pletnev recordings improves as quickly as it deteriorated;[...]


On both intellectual and emotional levels, I don't quite see how an artist's private-life-made-public influences my opinion of his recordings. Why, because of his alleged activities - as yet not fully substantiated - should the recording I admired last week now be abhorrent or unlistenable to me? It's still the same recording, and I still like it for the same reasons I liked it last week.

Regards,


I would say that on some emotional levels, you're right. But there is definitely an emotional level on which one's appreciation of good music translates to respect for the person creating it, and then that appreciation flows back into the appreciation of the music - and things have changed on that level.

I don't think the music continues to inspire respect in a person the way it used to, in cases where it becomes clear that the artist is seriously morally flawed.

I still respect certain regions of their brains, if that's possible. It doesn't feel like respect anymore, though. Since the object of respect is just a clump of neurons, the emotional attitude directed at it is more like appreciation. It's similar to the appreciation of a spectacular mountain range created by nature, or an unusual animal like a camouflaged insect that is amazing for some reason. It's wonder, but not respect. And since wonder is more sterile than respect, it feeds back into the appreciation of the music in a different way - it's less intimate, for one thing.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 02:08 PM

Most football fans can't much enjoy old clips of OJ Simpson doing his great runs.

And even if Hitler's art were great, we would hardly be able to embrace it for that.

You don't have to tell me that there are huge differences between anything Pletnev might have done and what OJ or Hitler did, but......it's the same basic principle: Our appreciation of someone's craft can be influenced by other things about them.
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 02:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
And even if Hitler's art were great, we would hardly be able to embrace it for that.
Wha?? No one, not even his mum, would have called his art great. Now, Churchill...

Or as Mel Brookes out it "Churchill! With his cigars, with his brandy, and his rotten painting! Rotten! Hitler, there was a painter. He could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon--two coats!"
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 02:27 PM

Originally Posted By: keyboardklutz
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
And even if Hitler's art were great, we would hardly be able to embrace it for that.
Wha?? No one, not even his mum, would have called his art great.....

Did you not recognize the usage of the subjunctive? ha
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 02:30 PM

Must be the way you tell 'em.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 02:32 PM

What's unclear about "if.....were"?

Sounds like you mistook "were" for "is."

Big difference. smile
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 02:41 PM

You mean as in if pigs were flying we could form some sort of conclusion?
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 02:43 PM

Originally Posted By: BruceD
Originally Posted By: timbo77
[...] If vindicated, I can only hope that FunkyLlama's experience of listening to Pletnev recordings improves as quickly as it deteriorated;[...]


On both intellectual and emotional levels, I don't quite see how an artist's private-life-made-public influences my opinion of his recordings. Why, because of his alleged activities - as yet not fully substantiated - should the recording I admired last week now be abhorrent or unlistenable to me? It's still the same recording, and I still like it for the same reasons I liked it last week.

Regards,
Well, it doesn't influence my opinion of his recordings - I still consider them as good as ever. Regardless, on a subjective level it makes them quite unpleasant to listen to. Silly, perhaps.
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 02:45 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Regardless, on a subjective level it makes them quite unpleasant to listen to. Silly, perhaps.
Very.
Posted by: BruceD

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 03:12 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
[...] Well, it doesn't influence my opinion of his recordings - I still consider them as good as ever. Regardless, on a subjective level it makes them quite unpleasant to listen to. Silly, perhaps.


No, I wouldn't say it was "silly," at all. It's just that we have different perceptions of the relationship between the artist and his art. It might, in the minds of some, be considered equally "silly" of me not to now have some negative feelings towards Pletnev's recordings.

Where intellect and emotion meet over a work of art, I think we have to try to respect each others' reactions.

Regards,
Posted by: Phlebas

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 03:53 PM

Originally Posted By: AngelinaPogorelich
Hey, you know what, tonight instead of spending the night with my boyfriend, I'm going to head to a bar and chat up some girls. If I'm lucky enough, maybe one of them will come home with me!


Now the thread's back on track! laugh
Posted by: chopinizmyhomeboy

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 09:25 PM

Originally Posted By: AngelinaPogorelich

Hey, Rettardo


While we all are entitled to our own opinions and may agree/disagree in order to defend against certain posts, it is surprising to see someone "attack" another member with such a childish, low comment. While this discussion regarding homosexuality in a thread about Pletnev's suspected pedophilia was pretty out of hand, it is unfortunate to see name-calling such as this.

Please stop with the troll name calling as well. It is ridiculously childish and unfair to the presumed "troll". I'm sure Mattardo was not trying to troll on purpose but simply trying to offer his opinion on a very touchy subject (that should not have been brought up in the first place). One should not bash someone just because his or her opinion differs from yours, especially since Mattardo wasn't too rude about it.
Posted by: Horowitzian

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 09:55 PM

WHAT AN AWESOME THREAD!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: eweiss

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 09:56 PM

Hmmm... The mods seemed to be OK with it. But you're right. Let's all behave ourselves and have some good clean fun! smile
Posted by: argerichfan

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 10:09 PM

I just listened to Pletnev's suite from Cinderella with Martha Argerich. Can't say I felt any different about Pletnev- it's a wonderful CD and fully deserved its honours.

With Pletnev's return to Russia this may all get swept under the carpet, so we may never know. Not excusing the damning circumstantial evidence of course, but so far that is all we have.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 10:27 PM

I didn't notice any post addressing it, but the OP says "...Pletnev in trouble too"

Who else is in trouble?
Posted by: stores

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 11:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
I didn't notice any post addressing it, but the OP says "...Pletnev in trouble too"

Who else is in trouble?


I'd actually wondered the same thing when I first saw the thread yesterday, but just figured I must have missed something lol.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 11:31 PM

I agree
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 11:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
I didn't notice any post addressing it, but the OP says "...Pletnev in trouble too"
Who else is in trouble?

I wondered also.
Posted by: argerichfan

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/09/10 11:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Damon
I didn't notice any post addressing it, but the OP says "...Pletnev in trouble too"
Who else is in trouble?

I wondered also.

Same here, though perhaps it was just odd wording from the OP.
Posted by: BruceD

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 12:10 AM

Maybe the OP didn't mean "...now he's in trouble too (along with X, Y, and Z)..." but, rather, Pletnev: first a pianist, then a conductor and now he's in trouble, too.

Regards,
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble (he alone) - 07/10/10 12:15 AM

I decided to change the topic to the above. I'm a little worried the thread will be closed if we keep wondering what the title means. Either that or Horowitzian will make another dramatic appearance. crazy
Posted by: signa

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble (he alone) - 07/10/10 12:38 AM

it could be just a blackmail, according to this:
http://www.pattayadailynews.com/en/2010/...se-intensifies/

i saw the NYT article about him the other day and wasn't sure it was true.
Posted by: ChopinAddict

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble... - 07/10/10 02:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Damon
I didn't notice any post addressing it, but the OP says "...Pletnev in trouble too"
Who else is in trouble?

I wondered also.


I had wondered too, but didn't want to admit it, as I thought I surely must have missed something. Now I have been relieved of my doubts anyway, as the OP has changed the subject of the thread (at least in his reply, and so have I)...
These are the advantages of practicing... You come back after staying away from the net and practicing and questions have been answered for you... laugh
Posted by: Horowitzian

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble... - 07/10/10 02:30 AM

Originally Posted By: charleslang
I decided to change the topic to the above. I'm a little worried the thread will be closed if we keep wondering what the title means. Either that or Horowitzian will make another dramatic appearance. crazy


You rang? grin
Posted by: theJourney

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble... - 07/10/10 03:00 AM

Quote:

He seemed a little confused and unsure of his surroundings. Karl Kraus sat alone in a cell, his blue, watery eyes following me as I entered the holding area of a Chiang Mai courthouse. Karl Kraus is 90 years old, hard of hearing, frail and, according to the police, a dangerous pedophile.

I'd wandered into the cells sure I would be rebuffed. Instead, the Second World War veteran seemed keen to talk to me. He explained how the allegations against him are motivated by greedy neighbors. He claimed they are trying to blackmail him. It's an argument he will make to judges in the coming weeks. Karl Kraus is thought to be the oldest person ever accused of child molestation in Thailand's over-burdened penal system.

Last year, 2,888 people were charged with having sex with children under 15 in Thailand. Thailand has become the destination of choice for sex tourists looking to prey on children. But now the police are raising their game...

"Money can change a lot...



http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/07/05/thailand.pedophiles/?hpt=C1&fbid=p-KtDqVoKfi

Pedophilia from American and European sex tourists is a huge problem in Thailand, but so is shaking down rich(er) foreigners.

Pletnev is not the first rich, prominent foreigner to be accused of pedophilia in Thailand, especially now under the current undemocratic and corrupt, chaotic regime.

He would not be the first one to be guilty. He certainly would not be the first to be completely innocent and a victim of blackmail by locals or extortion by the local police either. Pletnev is a very successful international touring musician and a successful local business owner in Thailand. A perfect mark. Now Pletnev is in trouble too.

Unfortunately, neither the US nor Thailand offer their citizens and residents who are accused of a crime meaningful privacy protection nor access to a fair and unbiased trial but instead allow them to be convicted in the press. Guilty until proven innocent is the rule. Not only in the press but also in the minds of too many pianists on pianoworld it would seem where even among artists hate apparently trumps reason and the notion that everyone deserves the presumption of innocence and benefit of doubt until their day in court when accused of any crime. Alas, in both the US and Thailand, justice is about money: those who are innocent (or even guilty) with money can buy their way out of trouble. Those without wind up in jail.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 06:02 AM

Originally Posted By: BruceD
Maybe the OP didn't mean "...now he's in trouble too (along with X, Y, and Z)..." but, rather, Pletnev: first a pianist, then a conductor and now he's in trouble, too.

Regards,


I assumed he was talking about the Australian pianist who was similarly accused recently over the years? The one that has people making accounts every couple of months to practice apologetics for him. Not sure of the name.
Posted by: wr

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 06:33 AM

Originally Posted By: chopinizmyhomeboy
One should not bash someone just because his or her opinion differs from yours, especially since Mattardo wasn't too rude about it.


Regardless of the appropriateness of that sort of name-calling, abjectly ignorant homophobic comments aren't simply a difference of opinion. And I don't see how you can think that calling people's behavior "aberrant" is anything but rude. It's pretty much the same as calling them freaks or monsters.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 06:53 AM

Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: chopinizmyhomeboy
One should not bash someone just because his or her opinion differs from yours, especially since Mattardo wasn't too rude about it.


Regardless of the appropriateness of that sort of name-calling, abjectly ignorant homophobic comments aren't simply a difference of opinion. And I don't see how you can think that calling people's behavior "aberrant" is anything but rude. It's pretty much the same as calling them freaks or monsters.


Holy crap, and it goes on and on and on and on and on....

I've dropped it - I suggest you do so as well. We have different opinions on the subject, and you've made your very loud point that you're offended by my opinion. Now move on. I get it. I think we all get it.
Posted by: Elissa Milne

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble... - 07/10/10 07:37 AM

Originally Posted By: ChopinAddict
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Damon
I didn't notice any post addressing it, but the OP says "...Pletnev in trouble too"
Who else is in trouble?

I wondered also.


I had wondered too, but didn't want to admit it, as I thought I surely must have missed something. Now I have been relieved of my doubts anyway, as the OP has changed the subject of the thread (at least in his reply, and so have I)...
These are the advantages of practicing... You come back after staying away from the net and practicing and questions have been answered for you... laugh

Is it just me, or just Sydney newspapers, but every few months or so some pianist/piano teacher or other somewhere in the world seems to be awaiting trial on sexual abuse charges.....
Posted by: stores

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 08:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: chopinizmyhomeboy
One should not bash someone just because his or her opinion differs from yours, especially since Mattardo wasn't too rude about it.


Regardless of the appropriateness of that sort of name-calling, abjectly ignorant homophobic comments aren't simply a difference of opinion. And I don't see how you can think that calling people's behavior "aberrant" is anything but rude. It's pretty much the same as calling them freaks or monsters.


Holy crap, and it goes on and on and on and on and on....

I've dropped it - I suggest you do so as well. We have different opinions on the subject, and you've made your very loud point that you're offended by my opinion. Now move on. I get it. I think we all get it.


I don't think he was responding to you, but you're right...we all get it (I don't think I need to spell that out).
Posted by: wr

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 08:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: chopinizmyhomeboy
One should not bash someone just because his or her opinion differs from yours, especially since Mattardo wasn't too rude about it.


Regardless of the appropriateness of that sort of name-calling, abjectly ignorant homophobic comments aren't simply a difference of opinion. And I don't see how you can think that calling people's behavior "aberrant" is anything but rude. It's pretty much the same as calling them freaks or monsters.


Holy crap, and it goes on and on and on and on and on....

I've dropped it - I suggest you do so as well. We have different opinions on the subject, and you've made your very loud point that you're offended by my opinion. Now move on. I get it. I think we all get it.


If you really had dropped it, you wouldn't have responded like this. Or responded at all.

I don't take direction about when to "move on" very well; I do that on my own volition when I decide it is time. But I can certainly see why you might be anxious for that to happen, since it was hardly just me alone that was offended by your so-called "opinion". Maybe it is you who should be the one needs to move on.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 10:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: chopinizmyhomeboy
One should not bash someone just because his or her opinion differs from yours, especially since Mattardo wasn't too rude about it.


Regardless of the appropriateness of that sort of name-calling, abjectly ignorant homophobic comments aren't simply a difference of opinion. And I don't see how you can think that calling people's behavior "aberrant" is anything but rude. It's pretty much the same as calling them freaks or monsters.


Holy crap, and it goes on and on and on and on and on....

I've dropped it - I suggest you do so as well. We have different opinions on the subject, and you've made your very loud point that you're offended by my opinion. Now move on. I get it. I think we all get it.
It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. If you want to trundle into a thread and spout homophobia that's your prerogative, but you have no right to complain when people react accordingly.
Posted by: chopinizmyhomeboy

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 02:56 PM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: chopinizmyhomeboy
One should not bash someone just because his or her opinion differs from yours, especially since Mattardo wasn't too rude about it.


Regardless of the appropriateness of that sort of name-calling, abjectly ignorant homophobic comments aren't simply a difference of opinion. And I don't see how you can think that calling people's behavior "aberrant" is anything but rude. It's pretty much the same as calling them freaks or monsters.


Holy crap, and it goes on and on and on and on and on....

I've dropped it - I suggest you do so as well. We have different opinions on the subject, and you've made your very loud point that you're offended by my opinion. Now move on. I get it. I think we all get it.
It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. If you want to trundle into a thread and spout homophobia that's your prerogative, but you have no right to complain when people react accordingly.


wow guys comon. If you really want to argue over this please settle this in a less public way. I understand that some people would get pissed over this; if I was homosexual I might have too..or not. The reason is that we can all forgive those who have made us mad (no matter how mean spirited, etc. he/she said it) and I am sure Mattardo is a nice guy. If you want to talk about this touchy subject, please settle it in a nice manner privately. This is a thread about a pianist not a homosexual thread. I'm sure we can all get along together and not let this issue get in the way of piano discussion.
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 03:10 PM

I think we should not respect Pletnev any more than we respect Socrates, who was described by Plato as boy-crazy.
Posted by: Kreisler

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 03:34 PM

FYI:

One of the reasons I leave threads like this open is that I think it's interesting to see how conversations evolve. Though we've strayed rather far from the original subject, I do think it's interesting to see where the discussions lead. While we have been led down a few hackneyed paths (homosexuality), we've also touched on a few interesting issues:

To what extent does politics enter into the situation, and the role a performing artist can play in international politics.

How perceptions of a artist's personal qualities affects people's experience of their works.

If a government turns a blind eye to illegal activity, should they share the blame for what happens?

In discussions like these, it's important to realize that anytime a controversial subject is brought up (and homosexuality is a controversial subject), some will always use it as an excuse to climb on their soapbox and educate the world on their views. Their voices are often the loudest and most extreme, but silencing them would mean missing out on some truly valuable discussions.
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 03:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Kreisler
(and homosexuality is a controversial subject)
Only for those who live in the dark ages.
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 04:04 PM

Originally Posted By: keyboardklutz
Originally Posted By: Kreisler
(and homosexuality is a controversial subject)
Only for those who live in the dark ages.


Oh come on. 'Controversial' is not a subjective term. Kreisler deserves better than that.
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 04:14 PM

Yes, but those who find it controversial don't!
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 04:17 PM

Originally Posted By: keyboardklutz
Yes, but those who find it controversial don't!


The subjectivist fallacy doesn't look any better the second time around, I'm sorry to say.
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 04:22 PM

Maybe not to you. Controversy, what controversy?
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 04:28 PM

Originally Posted By: keyboardklutz
Maybe not to you. Controversy, what controversy?


Try the fallacy a fourth time; if nothing else it's amusing. laugh
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 04:31 PM

Alright, where I live (not in a bible belt or an Islamic republic) no one has the slightest thing to say about homosexuality. Where is the controversy?
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 04:37 PM

Originally Posted By: keyboardklutz
Alright, where I live (not in a bible belt or an Islamic republic) no one has the slightest thing to say about homosexuality. Where is the controversy?


frown (unfortunately):

Homosexuality Laws
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 04:38 PM

Oh boy.

Let me clear a few misconceptions:
1- WR, I'm not ashamed of my views, just as the overwhelming majority of humans are not ashamed of their similar views. The difference is that political correctness silences many people, while I do not give a crap about political correctness. In a country (America) where the freedom of speech and open discussion of important issues are vital aspects of our country and how it works, any attempt at stopping free speech (no matter how much it offends a minority of citizens) should not be tolerated in any form. This wonderful aspect of our society has been backed up time and time again in the courts - it's one of the defining traits of our country.
Political Correctness attempts to appeal to minority views by stopping any discussions or viewpoints that are deemed offenseive to special interest groups.
I was foolish when I said I should just 'move on' in the discussion - I was buckling to a very vocal minority of posters on the Piano Forums who were offended by my words - posters who are attempting to use political correctness to shame me into being silent, to use the idea that their response is "appropriate" even though it's a special interest view not held by the majority of Americans. Ray Bradbury predicted in Fahrenheit Koechel 451 that books eventually became banned because very vocal minority viewpoints became increasinly offended at everyone and everything. Political Correctness is a damning example of his prescience.

If I wanted to move on from this discussion, it's not from a sense of shame on my part - it's because the conversation was going in a direction, and already had done so to be honest with you, that would have been innapropriate for this forum, as Chopinzmyhomeboy has pointed out several times. Unfortunately, the subject is about a pederast, so we are already on shaky ground, and I am not innocent of adding to the controversy - but the subject can have direct relations (homosexuality and pederasty), no matter how distasteful any of us find it. I'm not saying Homosexuals are Pederasts - so try not to quote that out of context.

2- Funkylama: I'm not complaing about the reaction: it's the typical reaction that anyone faces when they oppose political correctness and state a common social viewpoint that a few vocal citizens (5%, last count) find offensive to them, personally. The largest amount of complaining has been on your side, and even after I tried to back down from the subject and end it, it just went on and on. This is not surprising. The typical reactions were stated:
I'm a caveman.
I'm unenlightened.
I'm a homophobe.
Etc, etc.
Yes, all very expected and the usual business. Nothing surprising there. I expected at least a little intelligent conversation, but all I got was the usual "I'm offended, you brute". I'm offended too, but I don't let it get under my skin that much.

I'm not a biologist, psychologist, historian, anthropologist, religious expert - so I have to take what they tell me at face value and trust that their expertise will be reliable:

Biology has shown that human homosexuality is not physically normal.
Psychology has shown that human homosexuality is not mentally normal.
History has shown that homosexuality is not a regular practice of the majority of humans, and the events that are the result of those people.
Anthropology has shown that virtually all societies and cultures have viewed human homosexuality as abnormal.
Religions have virtually all preached that homosexuality is abnormal and a great sin.

Now, I trust what these fields have shown, and so far their findings have not been disproved (religion is a different matter, seeing as it's concerned with morality). They are commonly held views that have been proven countless times by the best experts.
If anyone disagrees with these findings, they are free to do so - but until they provide concrete evidence, they are only voicing a personal opinion, unbased in the facts. And they can do so until they are blue in the face - more power to them!

I said this several times, and I'll say it again: I don't have a problem with Homosexuals, I have a problem with some of the political rationale that they use. For instance, the claim that human homosexuality is normal. If you agree with the findings of the above scientific fields I mentioned, then human homosexuality is not normal. It is deviant, abnormal behavior - no matter what field you use to look at it with.
You can be offended with that statement, if you like - and it has been shown many times now, that some people are offended by that statement, that gathering of facts, that commonly held view. Don't expect me to believe you when you claim it's normal: no evivence has been given that is reliable and not emotional 'pleading-the-case' fallacy.

I have a great respect for the individual, the specialist, the trend-setter, the path-forger. They should celebrate their uniqueness, and what makes them special and different. What they should NOT do is claim that they are normal, just like everybody else - because they are not. They should not settle for that mediocrity. They are obviously different, whether this is shown from their sense of style, their compositional works, their impact left on history, or even their sexuality. Whatever it is - difference should be noted, even if other people don't appreciate those differences.

As it stands now, it appears to me as if the gay community has given up trying to be unique while fighting for equal political rights (Political, is THE key word here). Instead of focusing on their uniqueness, and why they need special exceptions made to current law, they are focusing on their claim that their sexual practices and lifestyle are normal, no different from anyone else. They are now claiming that, instead of civil-unions (a special exception made for special cases), they should be given the same normal marriage rights as normal, heterosexual couples. This does not help the cause at all! Because it's easily disproven, once the veil of political correctness is lifted. There are better arguments out there! I mentioned this several times already.

If you are offended and made irate by me, some random, fairly anonymous internet-poster - perhaps you need to approach your fight against discrimination with a bit tougher skin. I just don't understand why individuals would become offended when it is pointed out that they are not normal. There's NOTHING wrong with being a deviant, abnormal, or weird - this country has thrived upon it for hundreds of years. Instead of embracing those differences, those things that make us US, it seems that many people are clamoring for conformity, for acceptance, for love. Who cares if you're accepted, or loved? Who cares if your neighbor likes you, or if the cashier at 7-11 approves of your lifestyle? Are you really that psychologically weak that you need acceptance from everyone? From the whole country?

I don't hate homosexuals, just some of their latest political methods to achieve their goals. I am free to do so, just as much as they are free to hate me and my 'caveman' views: my numerous homosexual friends can attest to this (and no, don't think for a second that I'm lying or trying to make a lame point). They can use me as an example of everything that is wrong with this world, they can take me and transform me into the political devil they have been fighting for years. Shouting me down doesn't matter, and neither does my opinion. Not one bit. It won't change anything.

I'm free to hold my views, though the Piano Forum can certainly take offense at what I have said, because it's their forum, and freedom of speech doesn't apply in here. Just don't think that I hold a minority view that is freakish, cavemanish or ignorant, or based on blind, uninformed hate.
The only person I'll aplogize to is Kreisler, because he probably has 50 PMs complaining about me. Sorry...
And any other mods who have had to trudge through crap over this.

Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 04:43 PM

Originally Posted By: charleslang
Originally Posted By: keyboardklutz
Alright, where I live (not in a bible belt or an Islamic republic) no one has the slightest thing to say about homosexuality. Where is the controversy?


frown (unfortunately):

Homosexuality Laws
Medieval societies? I don't think the word controversy, as usually defined, applies. How about bigotry?
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 04:52 PM

Originally Posted By: keyboardklutz
Originally Posted By: charleslang
Originally Posted By: keyboardklutz
Alright, where I live (not in a bible belt or an Islamic republic) no one has the slightest thing to say about homosexuality. Where is the controversy?


frown (unfortunately):

Homosexuality Laws
Medieval societies? I don't think the word controversy, as usually defined, applies. How about bigotry?


"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"?
Isn't that all of us to some degree? I like my Yamaha, and am bigoted against other certain piano brands.
I like Mozart, and don't care for Ravel.
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 04:55 PM

First, free speech is a matter of whether the government can use its power to silence you. It has nothing to do with verbal or emotional reactions from other people on internet forums, or wherever. So, none of what has happened here has anything to do with free speech.

Second, when you cite psychology, biology etc., I have to wonder from where you have your information. It's certainly not contemporary scholarship you're talking about. Maybe you've been talking to someone who was last involved in scholarship in the fifties.

I admit to having some sympathy with you on the 'normalcy' point. I'm really happy to support the fight against intolerance and all forms of hate. But I do feel like the debate gets a little too close for comfort when the talk is of whether individuals must accept it as normal. Western-style liberal democracies are based on the idea of living-and-let-living in peace. People should not be preoccupied with what goes on in the minds of others, or in how they choose their friends or what they say in their living rooms. Many are opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds.

I was actually a touch sickened when I heard the suggestion that clergy might be penalized by law if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages. I just say leave the ministers alone. Maybe you will have to travel a few more miles to find a pastor who will perform a same-sex marriage, but there needs to be a sphere of freedom on this for both sides.

I wasn't sickened by the idea of same-sex marriage, mind you, but rather since I grew up in a conservative church, and it is tough for me to imagine our country forcing them to do something that is for them morally unacceptable.
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 04:58 PM

I don't think you can be either obstinate or intolerant to only 'some degree'. Speak for yourself!
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 04:59 PM

Originally Posted By: charleslang
I was actually a touch sickened when I heard the suggestion that clergy might be penalized by law if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
Take two aspirins and go to bed? Preferably with someone of a different sex?
Posted by: Andromaque

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 05:02 PM

Mattardo
Your extra dose of righteousness non-withstanding, your facts are plain wrong:
The science of biology has not proven that homosexuality is abnormal, neither has the science of psychology. And I do mean science and not religion thereof (they merge in some parts of this vast country).
Variations on normal abound in nature.
Society has indeed shunned homosexual behavior, but as you know, human traditions are also variable in time and space. In some human societies, precious traditions going back thousands of years, call for absolute control of women, their essential eradication form society (not seen, not heard, not educated, sold into marriage, killed for disobedience, stoned etc..). The arguments of the populace there are similar to yours. Are their traditions "normal"?? They also produce data from holy books and conversations, statistics about the promiscuity and moral bankrupcy of western women (e.g. out of wedlock birth rates, divorce rates, sex before marriage) and tout them as solid evidence in support of the righteousness of their traditions..

In brief, you do not have to "condone" anything, but you should not brand it as "abnormal" biologically, mentally, emotionally and socially, in such confident terms. Diluting this into a game of political correctness does not help your case either.

A close look at traditions mostly highlights the laws of relativity to me..
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 05:13 PM

Originally Posted By: keyboardklutz
Originally Posted By: charleslang
I was actually a touch sickened when I heard the suggestion that clergy might be penalized by law if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
Take two aspirins and go to bed? Preferably with someone of a different sex?


This is a human rights issue, and you're making jokes. Again, so much for the enlightened thread.
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 05:17 PM

Yeh, human rights of the clergy to discriminate. By the way, I take it Votes for Women is still controversial in your book? Of course then there's who gets to ride in the front of the bus!
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 05:27 PM

Originally Posted By: keyboardklutz
Yeh, human rights of the clergy to discriminate. By the way, I take it Votes for Women is still controversial in your book? Of course then there's who gets to ride in the front of the bus!


No, those are both public and not private. We don't force Catholic priests to perform Muslim marriage ceremonies if a Muslim couple requests one, and we should not do so. The same should apply for homosexual unions.
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 05:27 PM

Originally Posted By: keyboardklutz
Yeh, human rights of the clergy to discriminate.


Yes, that's exactly right.
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 05:31 PM

Originally Posted By: charleslang
We don't force Catholic priests to perform Muslim marriage ceremonies if a Muslim couple requests one, and we should not do so. The same should apply for homosexual unions.
I don't think anyone's asking Christian clergy to marry same sex muslims!
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 05:35 PM

I'm actually in favor of homosexual unions, but not of homosexual marriage, for reasons of intellectual property rights - the word and concept 'marriage' has been used for a long time for the union between a woman and a man (or several women and a man).

I encourage, and want, the homosexual community to invent a less sterile term than 'union'. Homosexual union as a publicly recognized institution deserve a name that does them and those who commit to them justice, and recognize the beginning of a hopefully long history. But the word 'marriage' is taken.

If the non-hispanic community wanted a non-hispanic ceremony called the 'quinceanera', I would support a lawsuit from the hispanic community reserving that word for their ceremony. Similarly for the Jewish bar-mitzvah.
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 05:36 PM

Originally Posted By: keyboardklutz
Originally Posted By: charleslang
We don't force Catholic priests to perform Muslim marriage ceremonies if a Muslim couple requests one, and we should not do so. The same should apply for homosexual unions.
I don't think anyone's asking Christian clergy to marry same sex muslims!


Not same sex. Just Muslim.
Posted by: stores

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 05:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Oh boy.

Let me clear a few misconceptions:
1- WR, I'm not ashamed of my views, just as the overwhelming majority of humans are not ashamed of their similar views. The difference is that political correctness silences many people, while I do not give a crap about political correctness. In a country (America) where the freedom of speech and open discussion of important issues are vital aspects of our country and how it works, any attempt at stopping free speech (no matter how much it offends a minority of citizens) should not be tolerated in any form. This wonderful aspect of our society has been backed up time and time again in the courts - it's one of the defining traits of our country.
Political Correctness attempts to appeal to minority views by stopping any discussions or viewpoints that are deemed offenseive to special interest groups.
I was foolish when I said I should just 'move on' in the discussion - I was buckling to a very vocal minority of posters on the Piano Forums who were offended by my words - posters who are attempting to use political correctness to shame me into being silent, to use the idea that their response is "appropriate" even though it's a special interest view not held by the majority of Americans. Ray Bradbury predicted in Fahrenheit Koechel 451 that books eventually became banned because very vocal minority viewpoints became increasinly offended at everyone and everything. Political Correctness is a damning example of his prescience.

If I wanted to move on from this discussion, it's not from a sense of shame on my part - it's because the conversation was going in a direction, and already had done so to be honest with you, that would have been innapropriate for this forum, as Chopinzmyhomeboy has pointed out several times. Unfortunately, the subject is about a pederast, so we are already on shaky ground, and I am not innocent of adding to the controversy - but the subject can have direct relations (homosexuality and pederasty), no matter how distasteful any of us find it. I'm not saying Homosexuals are Pederasts - so try not to quote that out of context.

2- Funkylama: I'm not complaing about the reaction: it's the typical reaction that anyone faces when they oppose political correctness and state a common social viewpoint that a few vocal citizens (5%, last count) find offensive to them, personally. The largest amount of complaining has been on your side, and even after I tried to back down from the subject and end it, it just went on and on. This is not surprising. The typical reactions were stated:
I'm a caveman.
I'm unenlightened.
I'm a homophobe.
Etc, etc.
Yes, all very expected and the usual business. Nothing surprising there. I expected at least a little intelligent conversation, but all I got was the usual "I'm offended, you brute". I'm offended too, but I don't let it get under my skin that much.

I'm not a biologist, psychologist, historian, anthropologist, religious expert - so I have to take what they tell me at face value and trust that their expertise will be reliable:

Biology has shown that human homosexuality is not physically normal.
Psychology has shown that human homosexuality is not mentally normal.
History has shown that homosexuality is not a regular practice of the majority of humans, and the events that are the result of those people.
Anthropology has shown that virtually all societies and cultures have viewed human homosexuality as abnormal.
Religions have virtually all preached that homosexuality is abnormal and a great sin.

Now, I trust what these fields have shown, and so far their findings have not been disproved (religion is a different matter, seeing as it's concerned with morality). They are commonly held views that have been proven countless times by the best experts.
If anyone disagrees with these findings, they are free to do so - but until they provide concrete evidence, they are only voicing a personal opinion, unbased in the facts. And they can do so until they are blue in the face - more power to them!

I said this several times, and I'll say it again: I don't have a problem with Homosexuals, I have a problem with some of the political rationale that they use. For instance, the claim that human homosexuality is normal. If you agree with the findings of the above scientific fields I mentioned, then human homosexuality is not normal. It is deviant, abnormal behavior - no matter what field you use to look at it with.
You can be offended with that statement, if you like - and it has been shown many times now, that some people are offended by that statement, that gathering of facts, that commonly held view. Don't expect me to believe you when you claim it's normal: no evivence has been given that is reliable and not emotional 'pleading-the-case' fallacy.

I have a great respect for the individual, the specialist, the trend-setter, the path-forger. They should celebrate their uniqueness, and what makes them special and different. What they should NOT do is claim that they are normal, just like everybody else - because they are not. They should not settle for that mediocrity. They are obviously different, whether this is shown from their sense of style, their compositional works, their impact left on history, or even their sexuality. Whatever it is - difference should be noted, even if other people don't appreciate those differences.

As it stands now, it appears to me as if the gay community has given up trying to be unique while fighting for equal political rights (Political, is THE key word here). Instead of focusing on their uniqueness, and why they need special exceptions made to current law, they are focusing on their claim that their sexual practices and lifestyle are normal, no different from anyone else. They are now claiming that, instead of civil-unions (a special exception made for special cases), they should be given the same normal marriage rights as normal, heterosexual couples. This does not help the cause at all! Because it's easily disproven, once the veil of political correctness is lifted. There are better arguments out there! I mentioned this several times already.

If you are offended and made irate by me, some random, fairly anonymous internet-poster - perhaps you need to approach your fight against discrimination with a bit tougher skin. I just don't understand why individuals would become offended when it is pointed out that they are not normal. There's NOTHING wrong with being a deviant, abnormal, or weird - this country has thrived upon it for hundreds of years. Instead of embracing those differences, those things that make us US, it seems that many people are clamoring for conformity, for acceptance, for love. Who cares if you're accepted, or loved? Who cares if your neighbor likes you, or if the cashier at 7-11 approves of your lifestyle? Are you really that psychologically weak that you need acceptance from everyone? From the whole country?

I don't hate homosexuals, just some of their latest political methods to achieve their goals. I am free to do so, just as much as they are free to hate me and my 'caveman' views: my numerous homosexual friends can attest to this (and no, don't think for a second that I'm lying or trying to make a lame point). They can use me as an example of everything that is wrong with this world, they can take me and transform me into the political devil they have been fighting for years. Shouting me down doesn't matter, and neither does my opinion. Not one bit. It won't change anything.

I'm free to hold my views, though the Piano Forum can certainly take offense at what I have said, because it's their forum, and freedom of speech doesn't apply in here. Just don't think that I hold a minority view that is freakish, cavemanish or ignorant, or based on blind, uninformed hate.
The only person I'll aplogize to is Kreisler, because he probably has 50 PMs complaining about me. Sorry...
And any other mods who have had to trudge through crap over this.



What does political correctness have to do with your homophobia?
Posted by: jtattoo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 05:39 PM

I've kept pretty quiet through most of this thread, but followed it with interest. It started interestingly enough with the news a famous pianist had been CHARGED with child molestation. Simple enough. Interesting news item. And some of the ideas on how this effects hearing him play, his focus in the public spotlight, the ramifications for his career were worth listening to. But, when ideas about a very complex subject as homosexuality are brought to fore in a public forum such as this, there is always the danger of lighting a fire under someone. I resent being put in the class of child molesters simply because I am a homosexual. One of the problems I have with both sides of the argument is the generalization of a group of people being "lumped" together because of only one aspect of their life. Sexuality by itself does not define the person. Sexuality does not make one normal or abnormal. Putting all gay people in a group with a "homosexual agenda" simply is inaccurate. We are all different!! Personally I would never want to be married, to either a man or a woman. However, I would like the civil benefits I feel due me as a tax-paying, honest, hard working citizen of this country. The same benefits that all (black, gay, Hispanic, disabled, female etc.) are due. And unless invited in, I would expect the government and anyone I deem unnecessary to stay out of my bedroom! Kreisler last post was quite valid. "Some" ideas I heard I found very interesting, others I found quite offensive. And for the time being, I am happy enjoying the first few pages of Mozart's Piano Concerto in d minor K.466. Thank you all for your input on that other rather quiet, reserved thread. Do you suppose Mozart was celebate???????
Posted by: Andromaque

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 05:46 PM

.
Posted by: Andromaque

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 05:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Andromaque
Originally Posted By: jtattoo
Do you suppose Mozart was cele(i)bate???????

No but he was into spanking.. I just read that in a letter he wrote to his wife..
hmmm.. I don't mean to start another "variations on normal" thread though!!
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 05:49 PM

Originally Posted By: jtattoo
Personally I would never want to be married, to either a man or a woman. However, I would like the civil benefits I feel due me as a tax-paying, honest, hard working citizen of this country.


I really like this view. As I said in my earlier post, the concept of marriage has deep historical roots, and some people value it for that reason, and but it's reasonable not to value it, for the very same reason. Homosexual unions are new and it's up to the homosexual community to determine what they are called and of course they should have the same benefits available as those given to couples in marriages.
Posted by: chopinizmyhomeboy

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 06:22 PM

However, Pletnev.. oh wait, wrong thread.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 06:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Andromaque
Mattardo
Your extra dose of righteousness non-withstanding, your facts are plain wrong:
The science of biology has not proven that homosexuality is abnormal, neither has the science of psychology. And I do mean science and not religion thereof (they merge in some parts of this vast country).
Variations on normal abound in nature.
Society has indeed shunned homosexual behavior, but as you know, human traditions are also variable in time and space. In some human societies, precious traditions going back thousands of years, call for absolute control of women, their essential eradication form society (not seen, not heard, not educated, sold into marriage, killed for disobedience, stoned etc..). The arguments of the populace there are similar to yours. Are their traditions "normal"?? They also produce data from holy books and conversations, statistics about the promiscuity and moral bankrupcy of western women (e.g. out of wedlock birth rates, divorce rates, sex before marriage) and tout them as solid evidence in support of the righteousness of their traditions..

In brief, you do not have to "condone" anything, but you should not brand it as "abnormal" biologically, mentally, emotionally and socially, in such confident terms. Diluting this into a game of political correctness does not help your case either.

A close look at traditions mostly highlights the laws of relativity to me..


It's not surprising that 2 replies come close to each other claiming that biology has proved nothing, as if the human reproduction system is open to debate. I'm not sure what courses some of you took to give you the idea that sexuality evolved apart from reproduction as it's main goal, with sexual stimulation as the trick to get it done when the common sense wasn't enough.
What biological purpose does human homosexuality serve, how did it evolve, and for what purposes? I must have missed that chapter.
I understand relativsm and changing morals, and I never claimed that there could be an absolute moral certainty about anything. Merely an example of humanity's views on the subject. In a relativistic world, isn't tradition and custom that much more important? It's the only possible way of establishing social rules, unless you propose that anarchy is the only correct answer to relativsm.

As I said - when the professional fields have long branded it as abnormal, I see no reason to tell them they are wrong. And I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. By all means, I would be interested to see basic facts of biology dismissed lol! And political correctness has everything to do with it, and I gave several reasons exactly why that is so. Merely claiming it is not a politically correct issue, doesn't make it so - just as claiming certain behavior is normal, does not make it so.

Of course, the typical comment of "you must be reading older literature on the subject" was thrown out there by another poster, with no references or evidences that science has changed it's mind. I guess I still believe in science, rather than wishful thinking.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 06:31 PM

Originally Posted By: chopinizmyhomeboy
However, Pletnev.. oh wait, wrong thread.


Sorry, I've created a monster.
Pletnev has actually paid me to take the heat off of him.
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 06:32 PM

Originally Posted By: chopinizmyhomeboy
However, Pletnev.. oh wait, wrong thread.


There is no entailment from being gay to being a pedophile, but there is an entailment from male sexual activity with boys to being gay (or bisexual). (Just as there is an entailment from, for example, male sexual activity with young girls to heterosexuality). So it's not completely off topic to discuss homosexuality.

In other words, the topic of homosexuality is raised by the OP just from the fact that the accusation has to do with boys. If that aspect of the accusation is something some are especially sensitive to, it's on topic to talk about it.
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 06:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo

What biological purpose does human homosexuality serve, how did it evolve, and for what purposes? I must have missed that chapter.


It's obvious to us all that you did. There is not a shortage of explanations for it. One primary one is that it emerged as a re-appropration of reproductive machinery (in the brain and of course also sexual organs) to serve purposes of male-male and female-female bonding.

In many species, there are members who contribute to reproduction on the big picture (sustainment and expansion of the whole population) rather than on an individual level. Think of worker bees, for example. If you have individuals contributing on this level, their reproductive functions are free to be applied to whatever they work well for. One thing they are good at is creating intimacy, strengthening trust, underlining emotional connections . . .

But, even if none of this were true, why on earth should we take the evolutionary functions of parts of our being to limit us as to what we use them for? Teeth evolved for breaking apart food, but primitive humans used their teeth as a general tool -- not just for food, but for helping to make tools and manipulate other things. Almost surely, that kind of flexibility in behavior played a central part in making us how successful we are.
Posted by: stores

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 07:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo


Merely claiming it is not a politically correct issue, doesn't make it so - just as claiming certain behavior is normal, does not make it so.



However, your views/opinions/homophobia have nothing to do with political correctness. You've basically said so yourself without realizing it apparently. Political correctness just gives you a "deflector" that you can spend your time talking about rather than focusing on the fact that you just flat out don't like gays and find them to be freaks. Don't dress up your bias, because it makes you look even more pathetic.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 07:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Kreisler
One of the reasons I leave threads like this open is that I think it's interesting to see how conversations evolve.....

Bravo!!

Quote:
.....While we have been led down a few hackneyed paths (homosexuality), we've also touched on a few interesting issues: To what extent does politics enter into the situation....How perceptions of a artist's personal qualities affects people's experience of their works.
If a government turns a blind eye to illegal activity, should they share the blame for what happens?.....

Absolutely.
Thanks for being so flexible on it -- and very well said.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 07:16 PM

Look.
Suppose he meant something like contentious (which I think he did), but just happened to say controversial (which will do just fine).

You're quibbling about vocabulary.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 07:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
....as if the human reproduction system is open to debate.....

I haven't read most of what's been said about this here (and don't care to), but, speaking as someone who's very schooled and very interested in biology, evolution, genetics, and sexuality, I can tell you that it's a mistake to look at sexuality only in terms of reproduction and assume that's its whole story.

And BTW I'm also speaking as someone who used to look at it essentially that way.

P.S. Charleslang's above post covers a big part of the counterargument extremely well.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 07:56 PM

Originally Posted By: wr
Originally Posted By: chopinizmyhomeboy
One should not bash someone just because his or her opinion differs from yours, especially since Mattardo wasn't too rude about it.


Regardless of the appropriateness of that sort of name-calling, abjectly ignorant homophobic comments aren't simply a difference of opinion. And I don't see how you can think that calling people's behavior "aberrant" is anything but rude. It's pretty much the same as calling them freaks or monsters.


You equate the word "aberrant" with freaks and monsters?
I find that laughingly ridiculous.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 08:08 PM

Originally Posted By: stores
Originally Posted By: Mattardo


Merely claiming it is not a politically correct issue, doesn't make it so - just as claiming certain behavior is normal, does not make it so.



However, your views/opinions/homophobia have nothing to do with political correctness. You've basically said so yourself without realizing it apparently. Political correctness just gives you a "deflector" that you can spend your time talking about rather than focusing on the fact that you just flat out don't like gays and find them to be freaks. Don't dress up your bias, because it makes you look even more pathetic.



Yes, I spent a whole paragraph on it. Very insightful.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 08:17 PM

Originally Posted By: charleslang
Originally Posted By: Mattardo

What biological purpose does human homosexuality serve, how did it evolve, and for what purposes? I must have missed that chapter.


It's obvious to us all that you did. There is not a shortage of explanations for it. One primary one is that it emerged as a re-appropration of reproductive machinery (in the brain and of course also sexual organs) to serve purposes of male-male and female-female bonding.

In many species, there are members who contribute to reproduction on the big picture (sustainment and expansion of the whole population) rather than on an individual level. Think of worker bees, for example. If you have individuals contributing on this level, their reproductive functions are free to be applied to whatever they work well for. One thing they are good at is creating intimacy, strengthening trust, underlining emotional connections . . .

But, even if none of this were true, why on earth should we take the evolutionary functions of parts of our being to limit us as to what we use them for? Teeth evolved for breaking apart food, but primitive humans used their teeth as a general tool -- not just for food, but for helping to make tools and manipulate other things. Almost surely, that kind of flexibility in behavior played a central part in making us how successful we are.


Yes, but we are talking about humans - not worker bees. If you want to talk about the many animals that change their sexes as needed, hive mentality, etc - that's okay, but they don't apply.
Your theory on the bonding sounds interesting, but doesn't appear to be essential to a species' survival - who proposed this theory?
Using teeth for things they weren't designed for is definately benificial if it gives an edge, but is still not a normal usage of them. It doesn't matter how beneficial my elbow is as a paintbrush, it wasn't designed to be used that way - therfore it's an abnormal usage.
I'm not saying you shouldn't use your elbow or teeth for operating vending machines, I'm just saying it's not normal.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 08:20 PM

In the end - everyone has their own opinions on the matter, and nobody is going to have their mind changed over any of it. It was never my intention to do so. So easy to get off track because statements not readily agreed-upon have to be dissected and argued over. By the time it's done, their applicability has lost some of their immediacy and charm, if they ever had any.

Everyone will justify their own actions, no matter what they are - even Pletnev.
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 08:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: charleslang
Originally Posted By: Mattardo

What biological purpose does human homosexuality serve, how did it evolve, and for what purposes? I must have missed that chapter.


It's obvious to us all that you did. There is not a shortage of explanations for it. One primary one is that it emerged as a re-appropration of reproductive machinery (in the brain and of course also sexual organs) to serve purposes of male-male and female-female bonding.

In many species, there are members who contribute to reproduction on the big picture (sustainment and expansion of the whole population) rather than on an individual level. Think of worker bees, for example. If you have individuals contributing on this level, their reproductive functions are free to be applied to whatever they work well for. One thing they are good at is creating intimacy, strengthening trust, underlining emotional connections . . .

But, even if none of this were true, why on earth should we take the evolutionary functions of parts of our being to limit us as to what we use them for? Teeth evolved for breaking apart food, but primitive humans used their teeth as a general tool -- not just for food, but for helping to make tools and manipulate other things. Almost surely, that kind of flexibility in behavior played a central part in making us how successful we are.


Yes, but we are talking about humans - not worker bees. If you want to talk about the many animals that change their sexes as needed, hive mentality, etc - that's okay, but they don't apply.


I didn't mention changing sexes or 'hive mentality', nor do I know what that even means. And if you want an example from humans, take nuns, or priests or vestal virgins in ancient Rome (or old folks generally). In these cases the reproductive systems are available for other uses (unfortunately in all except the last case they're mostly just wasted instead of finding another use).

Originally Posted By: Mattardo

Your theory on the bonding sounds interesting, but doesn't appear to be essential to a species' survival


And being essential to survival is what makes something normal? You mean like eating meat? Or bowling? Or surfing?

Originally Posted By: Mattardo

I'm not saying you shouldn't use your elbow or teeth for operating vending machines, I'm just saying it's not normal.


The only reason these applications sound silly is because we have other better ways to do these things.
Posted by: Jonathan Baker

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 08:28 PM

What churches do within their denominations is their business since they are effectively private clubs with private rules. But there is no proposal by any group or politician in the USA that promotes the idea that any priest should be penalized for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage. To suggest otherwise is to traffic in rumors.
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 08:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
In the end - everyone has their own opinions on the matter, and nobody is going to have their mind changed over any of it. It was never my intention to do so. So easy to get off track because statements not readily agreed-upon have to be dissected and argued over. By the time it's done, their applicability has lost some of their immediacy and charm, if they ever had any.

Everyone will justify their own actions, no matter what they are - even Pletnev.


It's a gloomy picture of things. Maybe it's just time for a rest.
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 08:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Jonathan Baker
But there is no proposal by any group or politician in the USA that promotes the idea that any priest should be penalized for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage. To suggest otherwise is to traffic in rumors.


True, there is no proposal at least that I've heard of. But it had to be made explicit - including through new legislation - that clergy could refuse in these cases legally, since anti-discrimination legislation already on the books, combined with newly legal homosexual unions, left open a possibility of pursuing prosecution.

I think the attitudes shown by at least one poster on this board ("cruel but fair") indicate that some legal challenge would have been made otherwise.
Posted by: Jonathan Baker

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 09:58 PM

The government should get out of the marriage business where it has no compelling interest. Excepting underage minors who are subject to sexual abuse, the government has no persuasive argument to nullify or legally forbid the recognition of any personal union, straight or gay. Who would want their choice of a spouse to be subject to the condescending approval or
condemnation of any mere politician or bureaucrat?

Local city halls should register civil unions to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Religious marriages may be left to any religious organization to perform as they please, but those unions should not have any legal hierarchy over civil unions.

Marriage as an "intellectual property right"? Traditionally, marriage has governed the right of a man's control over a woman the children they create, social standing, and the rights of inheritance. To quote Tina Turner, "What's love got to do with it?"

Black Americans (slaves) in America were forbidden to marry for five hundred years (the Bible, regrettably, sanctions slavery in the Book of Leviticus), and right of interracial couples to marry has been recognized only since 1967!

The entire marriage argument is largely as mask for the real issue: who gets the sinister thrill of being able to control the levers of power over other citizens.



Posted by: Jonathan Baker

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 10:40 PM

The entire Pletnev situation is tragic from every perspective. I have no idea about Pletnev's sexual preferences (nor do I care, actually), or the veracity of the charges leveled against him, so I choose not to proffer speculation about that. The whole sordid matter will unfold in the Thailand courts (heaven only knows what their "due process" consists of...)and we will all read about it in the press.

On a note previously struck in this particular thread - there is a defensive posture by some to rebuff the claim that many pianist are somewhat "effeminate".

I have had many male piano students through the years who were comparatively effeminate (effeminate in comparison to, say, James Cagney). Why is being effeminate considered a bad thing? Perhaps the prejudice lies in the perception of power. Effeminacy is associated with women, and traditionally women have had no power. Id est, anything "effeminate" or female-like is "bad" because it is in a lesser power position.

We are no longer in stone age or even in the Age of Bronze, so can we move the discussion of human value to a new level not based solely on idolization of brute physical power?

So what if Chopin was rather effeminate, and not stomping around like Theodore Roosevelt? Some men are effeminate. So what of it? What's the problem? Why should we value them less?

Zeroing in more specifically on the entire homosexuals-at-the-keyboard issue: If there were no homosexuals in the arts there would be no Broadway, no Hollywood, and the classical music scene would be reduced in half at a minimum. It is true that there is a preponderance of gays in the arts, and apparently this has always been the case.


Horowitz made no secret of his preference for men and neither did Earl Wild. A new biography of Richter discusses his homosexuality. I don't feel it is my place to 'out' other pianists, but if you are inclined to do so, type the name of the top concert pianists of the past fifty years into Google along with the word "gay" or "homosexual" and note how many legitimate books and news articles appear on screen addressing the matter. You may find the results surprising.
Posted by: eweiss

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 10:43 PM

Here's what I've discovered... those who argue the loudest against homosexuality, usually have something to hide, either consciously or subconsciously.

The angrier and louder the rhetoric, the more those spewing it back themselves into their own dark hole - so to speak. smile
Posted by: eweiss

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 10:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Jonathan Baker
Slaves in America were forbidden to marry for five hundred years (the Bible, regrettably, sanctions slavery in the Book of Leviticus), and right of interracial couples to marry has been recognized only since 1967!

The entire marriage argument is largely as mask for the real issue: who gets the sinister thrill of being able to control the levers of power over other citizens.

Brilliant and spot on! smile
Posted by: Kreisler

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 10:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Everyone will justify their own actions, no matter what they are - even Pletnev.


It's easy to justify a position - just watch cable news! What's far more difficult is to explore a position, to search for an understanding instead of passing judgment or picking a side.

If there's one thing I don't like about political and social discourse in the United States, it's that everyone thinks that the way to tackle an issue is:

1) Pick a side (based on whatever...political leanings, ideological theories, religious principles, etc...)
2) Become an advocate
3) Defend it
4) Attack the opposition

That's fine for football, but I don't see much social or civic progress coming out of it.

Instead of picking sides, I wish people would explore the issues a little more fully. Take this thread for example - has anyone looked into the demographics of pedophiliacs? Are pedophiliacs more likely to be involved in the arts? Homosexual? Russian? Pianists?

Has there been an update on the case?

There's this...

And this...

And this...

And has anyone bothered to check in to how the Thai legal system works? What kind of due process is there? What kind of evidence is there? We've heard rumors of pictures, which Pletnev admits, but he also says somewhere the pictures don't depict anything prurient, so?

I plan on following the case and posting updates. I count myself among those who enjoy his recordings. If he's innocent, I sincerely hope he continues to record and enjoy his successful career. If not, I hope they lock him up and use his money to combat child prostitution in Thailand. And regardless, I hope everyone takes something away from our discussion of the issues besides having simply picked and argued a side.

Let's learn a little.
Posted by: Andromaque

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 10:54 PM

BTW, it just so happens that Stephen Hough (a homosexual pianist who converted to catholicism; how "abnormal" is that?!!) has a recent entry in his blog that comments on issues similar to those at hand in this thread.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/ste...d-jeffrey-john/
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 11:01 PM

Originally Posted By: eweiss
Here's what I've discovered... those who argue the loudest against homosexuality, usually have something to hide, either consciously or subconsciously....

Even speaking as someone 'on your side' (and a shrink, FWIW), IMO that's a tough statement to support or defend. Sure, there are many instances where it's true (include some famous ones in recent years), but as a broad statement......I don't see how you or anyone can assert that, except as a speculation.
Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 11:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Jonathan Baker


Marriage as an "intellectual property right"?
Marriage is primarily concerned with material property, social power, supervision of offspring, and inheritance.


I don't see the point here -- the first part is a question, and the second part is true.

My point from earlier was that the institution of marriage is collectively the property right of heterosexuals of all cultures, just as e.g. bar mitzvah is the intellectual property right of the Jewish tradition.

If public opinion among heterosexuals shifts so as to expand the concept of marriage to homosexuals - that will be one possibility. If it doesn't, homosexuals should choose a different name for homosexual unions. (Or co-opt a name already in use such as 'matrimony' -- I think many otherwise hesitant heterosexuals would react positively to the idea of homosexual matrimony, as distinct from heterosexual marriage. (If we can ignore the motherly etymology it probably has.)

Originally Posted By: Jonathan Baker

The entire marriage argument is largely as mask for the real issue: who gets the sinister thrill of being able to control the levers of power over other citizens.


That's a red herring. This is an issue of rights. If a group of people holds something to be meaningful and to be something that figures centrally in their cultural traditions, it's cynical to cast it as an issue of power.

It's easy to move to making that kind of a claim because apparently folks conflate our present discussion with the fight against hate , which is a noble and difficult one, in which the opponents are sinister.
Posted by: Ralph

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/10/10 11:45 PM

I've been reading through this thread with amazement. Why do people always confuse pedophilia with homosexuality? The two have nothing to do with eachother. A normal homosexual man has no more attraction to a young boy than a normal heterosexual man would have to a young girl.

Deviant behavior is not a homosexual disease. Deviant behavior is the disease, and a crime.
Posted by: Jonathan Baker

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 12:12 AM

Mr. Lang,


Employing the words "intellectual property rights" to advance your argument is a misuse of the term, which commonly refers to patents and copyrights.

No one has an exclusive patent on human rights of any kind. Those who would claim they are entitled to a privileged position over others merely by the situation of their birth or biology are attempting to exercise a form of class warfare for their own benefit.

There are those who are possessed of the odd notion that citizen's rights are a substance of limited volume, to be rationed out carefully. The implicit fear is that if somebody else is allowed to have as much as I do, I necessarily have less. It is a false presumption.

Beyond the specious notion of exclusive right to the ownership and use of words (Daniel Webster would have a belly-laugh from that one) I have yet to read an argument, anywhere, clarifying how, exactly, straight marriage would be lessened in prestige or rights by co-equal gay marriage. Until that is persuasively answered (good luck) there is no credible argument against recognition of gay marriage.

The definitions of marriage are not consistent in any society over time, as I have previously illustrated. The definitions of marriage have already changed within my lifetime, and will change many times over after we are all dead and forgotten...

Although you call me "cynical" for framing homophobia (I will include racism and sexism as well) in terms of power & privilege, you fail to refute my point with either logic or examples. It is not cynical to be accurate, and my point stands.

It is true that the superstitions of Bronze Age barbarians enshrined in biblical documents are most commonly cited as justification for slavery (during the Civil War), homophobia, sexism, etc. But modern scientific research is in sharp conflict with these legacies of the Dark Ages. Never-the-less, some will cling to particular and fearful scriptures in hopes of winning favor with some-or-other deity. But not all of us worship the same deities, or any deity at all, and ever since Jefferson established the wall separating church from state (see Bill of Rights, Article I, and Federalist Papers) the matter of human rights is no longer the exclusive provenance of priests.







Posted by: charleslang

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 12:49 AM

I hardly know where to begin.

Originally Posted By: Jonathan Baker
Mr. Lang, employing the words "intellectual property rights" to advance your argument is a misuse of the term, which commonly refers to patents and copyrights.


An ironic argument - you're happy to expand the meaning of 'marriage', but insist on an obsolete and narrow definition of 'intellectual property rights'. Individuals have intellectual property rights, and collectives do as well - corporations, for example, and Native Americans have intellectual property rights, and are so justified in, e.g., objecting to misuse of Native American names (which to be legitimate must be conferred by the means determined by the tribes).

Originally Posted By: Jonathan Baker


No one one has an exclusive patent on human rights of any kind. Those who would claim they are entitled to a privileged position over others merely by the situation of their birth or biology are attempting to exercise a form of class warfare for their own benefit.

There are those who seem to be possessed of the odd notion that citizens rights are a substance of limited volume, to be rationed out carefully. The implicit fear is that if somebody else has as much as I do, I necessarily have less. It is a false notion.



I'm not sure who your audience here is. Of course, I agree that no one has a patent on human rights. I haven't made any claims about entitlement to privileged positions. My fundamental premises are fairness and universal application of human rights, including rights to intellectual property, and rights to undifferentiated equal rights for homosexual and heterosexual unions.

Originally Posted By: Jonathan Baker


Beyond the specious notion of exclusive right to the ownership and use of words (Daniel Webster would get a belly-laugh out of that)


I'm not sure why he would be laughing. There are plenty of words that are protected - trademarked names and titles being among the first to come to my own mind.

Originally Posted By: Jonathan Baker

I have yet to read an argument, anywhere, clarifying how, exactly, any heterosexual's marriage is lessened in value or rights by co-equal homosexual marriage. Until that is persuasively answered (good luck) there is no credible argument against recognition of gay marriage.


This is hurtful, much like the wry historical Caucasian-American misappropriation of Native American language. The truth is, it's up to Native Americans how to use their culture. Period. It's morally wrong there, and it's not any less morally wrong in the case of marriage.

Originally Posted By: Jonathan Baker


The definitions of marriage are not consistent in any society over time, as I have previously illustrated. They have already changed within my lifetime, and will change many times over after we are all dead and forgotten.

It's fallacious to say that since there have been changes in the past, and since we are discussing another change, they all fall in the same category. Secondly, I've already acknowledged explicitly, and implicitly through use of the concept of intellectual property, that if attitudes change, the concept can change. Who am I to stand in the way? But if it doesn't, it's wrong to co-opt it for one's own projects.
Originally Posted By: Jonathan Baker


Although you call me "cynical" for framing homophobia (and I will include racism and sexism as well) in terms of power & privilege, you fail to refute my point with either logic or examples. It is not cynical to be accurate, and my point stands.



I'm lost, honestly. This sounds like you're conflating lots of things, and adding some conspiracy talk. I don't know how many times I need to say what seems obvious to me - I'm not defending hate or cultural imperialism. To me this seems as obvious as the distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia - and I wonder why so many here are able to correctly make the latter but not the former.

Originally Posted By: Jonathan Baker

It is true that the superstitions of Bronze Age barbarians enshrined in various documents is most commonly cited as justification for slavery, homophobia, sexism, etc., but science is in sharp conflict with these legacies of the Dark Ages. Never-the-less, some will cling to these scriptures in hopes of winning favor with some-or-other deity. But not all of us worship the same deities, or any diety at all, and ever since Jefferson
established the wall separating church from state,the matter of human rights is not longer the exclusive provenance of priests.


Again, I'm not sure who your audience is in this rant. I'm not religious and none of my arguments depend on religion. Parts of the above read rather like hate speech.

Posted by: wr

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 01:13 AM

Originally Posted By: eweiss
Here's what I've discovered... those who argue the loudest against homosexuality, usually have something to hide, either consciously or subconsciously.

The angrier and louder the rhetoric, the more those spewing it back themselves into their own dark hole - so to speak. smile


That has been true for some public figures in the US, that's for sure. Actually, there was a scientific experiment that proved your theory. The gist of the finding was that homophobes get turned on by gay erotica.
Posted by: Fugue14

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 02:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Ralph
I've been reading through this thread with amazement. Why do people always confuse pedophilia with homosexuality? The two have nothing to do with eachother. A normal homosexual man has no more attraction to a young boy than a normal heterosexual man would have to a young girl.

Deviant behavior is not a homosexual disease. Deviant behavior is the disease, and a crime.


I was formulating almost this exact response! I'm a straight man, and I have absolutely no desire to have relations with young girls. I have a few gay friends who have absolutely no interest in young boys. As Ralph says, it is not a "homosexual disease." I equate it with bestiality and necrophilia (except it's more harmful to its victims)--there's something wrong in the brain.
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 02:54 AM

Welcome to PW Mr Baker! You make great reading.

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
I can tell you that it's a mistake to look at sexuality only in terms of reproduction and assume that's its whole story.
Some rare sense. Reproduction's just a wee sub-plot (if it makes it out of the cutting room at all).
Posted by: debrucey

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 07:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: charleslang
Originally Posted By: Mattardo

What biological purpose does human homosexuality serve, how did it evolve, and for what purposes? I must have missed that chapter.


It's obvious to us all that you did. There is not a shortage of explanations for it. One primary one is that it emerged as a re-appropration of reproductive machinery (in the brain and of course also sexual organs) to serve purposes of male-male and female-female bonding.

In many species, there are members who contribute to reproduction on the big picture (sustainment and expansion of the whole population) rather than on an individual level. Think of worker bees, for example. If you have individuals contributing on this level, their reproductive functions are free to be applied to whatever they work well for. One thing they are good at is creating intimacy, strengthening trust, underlining emotional connections . . .

But, even if none of this were true, why on earth should we take the evolutionary functions of parts of our being to limit us as to what we use them for? Teeth evolved for breaking apart food, but primitive humans used their teeth as a general tool -- not just for food, but for helping to make tools and manipulate other things. Almost surely, that kind of flexibility in behavior played a central part in making us how successful we are.


Yes, but we are talking about humans - not worker bees. If you want to talk about the many animals that change their sexes as needed, hive mentality, etc - that's okay, but they don't apply.
Your theory on the bonding sounds interesting, but doesn't appear to be essential to a species' survival - who proposed this theory?
Using teeth for things they weren't designed for is definately benificial if it gives an edge, but is still not a normal usage of them. It doesn't matter how beneficial my elbow is as a paintbrush, it wasn't designed to be used that way - therfore it's an abnormal usage.
I'm not saying you shouldn't use your elbow or teeth for operating vending machines, I'm just saying it's not normal.


Your major mistake here is looking at the entire species as the unit of survival/reproduction, and this isn't how things work. Evolution works for the survival of the 'gene' that encourages a particular behaviour. Genes that encourage sharp teeth in beavers for example will be selected for, not beavers with sharp teeth. Of course in almost all cases these two equate to the same thing, but that isn't always so. The gene that is being selected for doesn't necessarily have to be within the organism that is doing the surviving.

Lets assume a particular gene influenced homosexual behaviour (a massive over-simplification but the argument stands). Studies have shown that gay men are more likely to have older siblings than straight men, in fact every time a woman has another successive male child the likeliood of it being homosexual increases each time. And so if you have a bunch of siblings living close together as social animals do, having an extra young, fit, gay brother whose resources aren't dedicated to reproduction and foraging for his own offspring can instead be concentrated on helping to fend for the rest of the family instead. The gay brother in this scenario would probably die young, and without reproducing, and so his own genes won't be passed on and be selected for. But there is a very high liklihood indeed that the genes that influenced his homosexual behaviour will also be in the bodies of his family who he has helped to survive, because close family members share many of the same genes (though they don't always have the same outcomes). So by the gay brothers genes causing him to become homosexual, they have in fact promoted their own survival in the bodies of his siblings (in which they were 'dormant' lets say), even though they actually discouraged the survival of the body they were active in.

This is a major theory as to the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality, and another workable one has already been suggested here. (To say that bonding/trust relationships don't encourage survival is quite wrong, even the most statistically miniscule advantage that it provided would build up to significant effects over time). This mechanism is known as indirect selection or the 'extended phenotype' and can also explain a number of other superficially strange behaviours all throughout the animal kingdom, worker bees being a particularly good example (they encourage the survival of genes that cause them to sacrifice their own reproductive success because those genes are also in the queen bee but inactively so) and you can't say that such models don't apply to humans. We may be vastly different in many respects but we are all evolving by the same mechanisms, and a great deal of understanding can be gained by drawing useful comparisons. Also remember most of this evolutionary 'sculpting' took place long before humans remotely resembled the civilised animals we are today (by which I mean animals that have civilisations). It is therefore also probable that for most of the time our species has existed, homosexuality hasn't been treated the way it has been for the past few thousand years. There is no evidence that any other species looks down on homosexual behaviour.

Here are some interesting articles if you are curious about my sources:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13...osexuality.html
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002282
http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html (1994 - much more research has been done since then, but still interesting)

Also Dawkins' book The Extended Phenotype discusses at length the evolutionary mechanism I've been talking about.


PS.
To say that the use of teeth as practical tools other than for just chewing and biting is abnormal makes almost no sense. Sure, the first time an an animal used a part of its body for a purpose that it didn't evolve for it could said to be abmornal usage, but if that usage persisted for thousands, even millions of years it is completely nonsensical to call it abnormal. By that logic sharks using their jaws/teeth for anything at all is abnormal because the shark's jaw evolved from cartilage used to pump water through the gills like bellows. When it comes to behaviour as opposed to physical protrusions, its harder to quantify but the same logic applies. The first time animals began to exhibit same-sex attraction it could be described as abnormal behaviour, but since same-sex attraction has now persisted most probably for millions of years such a term has no meaning. The only sense in which one could call it abnormal is that it does not occur in the majority, which equally meaningless an argument as far as evolution is concerned.
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 08:00 AM

Jeez, all that learning and still time to play the piano? Hats off gentlemen!
Posted by: argerichfan

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 08:04 AM

Maybe he doesn't sleep. But anyone from Chester is cool in my book. I love Chester. (Nice post, btw.)
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 08:12 AM

Ha, yes - very good post!
Posted by: Andromaque

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 08:14 AM

good post, except that the science of evolution is not acknowledged by creationists..
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 08:24 AM

Originally Posted By: debrucey

Lets assume a particular gene influenced homosexual behaviour (a massive over-simplification but the argument stands). Studies have shown that gay men are more likely to have older siblings than straight men, in fact every time a woman has another successive male child the likeliood of it being homosexual increases each time. And so if you have a bunch of siblings living close together as social animals do, having an extra young, fit, gay brother whose resources aren't dedicated to reproduction and foraging for his own offspring can instead be concentrated on helping to fend for the rest of the family instead. The gay brother in this scenario would probably die young, and without reproducing, and so his own genes won't be passed on and be selected for. But there is a very high liklihood indeed that the genes that influenced his homosexual behaviour will also be in the bodies of his family who he has helped to survive, because close family members share many of the same genes (though they don't always have the same outcomes). So by the gay brothers genes causing him to become homosexual, they have in fact promoted their own survival in the bodies of his siblings (in which they were 'dormant' lets say), even though they actually discouraged the survival of the body they were active in.

This is a major theory as to the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality, and another workable one has already been suggested here. (To say that bonding/trust relationships don't encourage survival is quite wrong, even the most statistically miniscule advantage that it provided would build up to significant effects over time). This mechanism is known as indirect selection or the 'extended phenotype' and can also explain a number of other superficially strange behaviours all throughout the animal kingdom, worker bees being a particularly good example (they encourage the survival of genes that cause them to sacrifice their own reproductive success because those genes are also in the queen bee but inactively so) and you can't say that such models don't apply to humans. We may be vastly different in many respects but we are all evolving by the same mechanisms, and a great deal of understanding can be gained by drawing useful comparisons. Also remember most of this evolutionary 'sculpting' took place long before humans remotely resembled the civilised animals we are today (by which I mean animals that have civilisations). It is therefore also probable that for most of the time our species has existed, homosexuality hasn't been treated the way it has been for the past few thousand years. There is no evidence that any other species looks down on homosexual behaviour.

Here are some interesting articles if you are curious about my sources:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13...osexuality.html
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002282
http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html (1994 - much more research has been done since then, but still interesting)

Also Dawkins' book The Extended Phenotype discusses at length the evolutionary mechanism I've been talking about.


PS.
To say that the use of teeth as practical tools other than for just chewing and biting is abnormal makes almost no sense. Sure, the first time an an animal used a part of its body for a purpose that it didn't evolve for it could said to be abmornal usage, but if that usage persisted for thousands, even millions of years it is completely nonsensical to call it abnormal. By that logic sharks using their jaws/teeth for anything at all is abnormal because the shark's jaw evolved from cartilage used to pump water through the gills like bellows. When it comes to behaviour as opposed to physical protrusions, its harder to quantify but the same logic applies. The first time animals began to exhibit same-sex attraction it could be described as abnormal behaviour, but since same-sex attraction has now persisted most probably for millions of years such a term has no meaning. The only sense in which one could call it abnormal is that it does not occur in the majority, which equally meaningless an argument as far as evolution is concerned.


I'll have to check out your sources, today.
Concerning the younger sibling theory: is this a strictly genetic thing, or is it an environmental thing? For instance, the very fact that there is a dominant, older male in a position of power over other males might cause their subservience to become a form of homosexuality - after all, their chances of mating will not be so good. Similar to how packs work, with dominant alpha males lording it over the lesser males, it appears that any male can become the dominant alpha. It might be stretching it to say that environment has less to do with a male's position in it's society, than a simple gene encouraging homosexual and subservient behavior.

Concerning the PS: these are just semantics, now, I think. By any passionless view on the matter, until homosexuality supercedes heterosexuality in imprtance and function, it will still be considered a biologically abnormal use of the reproduction system.

Thank you for the links, and the post!
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 08:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Andromaque
good post, except that the science of evolution is not acknowledged by creationists..
Or I would have thought, Mattardonists! (I was right!)
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 08:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Andromaque
good post, except that the science of evolution is not acknowledged by creationists..


Yes, you're right.
I don't think that Yahweh used Theistic Evolution either...he either did it in 6 days, or he didn't heh.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 08:27 AM

Originally Posted By: keyboardklutz
Or I would have thought, Mattardonists!


What makes you think I don't follow evolution? Because I don't subscribe to every new theory that emerges, keep up with every new finding, voraciously devour every evolutionary journal to stay on the cutting edge, just in case a debate ever arises?

shocked
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 08:30 AM

Now's your chance.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 08:36 AM

Originally Posted By: keyboardklutz
Now's your chance.


Yes it is.

I might as well admit I'm not a pianist, either. After all - I don't everthing there is to know about a piano.
I'm not even a Mozart fan - I haven't played all his works.
I don't even believe in eating steak for pleasure - I haven't properly tested every single type of steak for it's taste.

crazy
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 08:39 AM

...and boyfriends?
Posted by: stores

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 08:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
[

I might as well admit I'm not a pianist, either.


Not surprising.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 08:49 AM

Originally Posted By: stores
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
[

I might as well admit I'm not a pianist, either.


Not surprising.


Insightful, as usual. Where do you find the time to come up with such witty statements? Or are you just so good at being petty and rude that it comes naturally to you, without any effort?
Posted by: stores

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 09:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: stores
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
[

I might as well admit I'm not a pianist, either.


Not surprising.


Insightful, as usual. Where do you find the time to come up with such witty statements? Or are you just so good at being petty and rude that it comes naturally to you, without any effort?


After reading most of what you've written lately, I'd hardly think you have any room, whatsoever, to call anyone else petty, or rude.
Posted by: PhilipHotchkiss

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 09:44 AM

I am sitting here, utterly stunned. I'm not going to even write what I'm feeling right now.
Posted by: debrucey

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 09:45 AM

Its neither strictly genetic or strictly environmental, and its often unhelpful to think of the two as mutually exclusive. Twin studies show that homosexuality has a strong genetic component but thats not the whole story. Environmental factors that affect it are much more likely to be things like hormone exposure in the womb rather than things like culture, interaction and socialisation, which have little to no affect on a persons deep-seated sexual identity (though they can modify behaviour of course).
Posted by: PhilipHotchkiss

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 10:12 AM

Exclusive video interview of Pletnev regarding the charges, etc.

http://bit.ly/bOPZJC
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 10:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: eweiss
Here's what I've discovered... those who argue the loudest against homosexuality, usually have something to hide, either consciously or subconsciously....

Even speaking as someone 'on your side' (and a shrink, FWIW), IMO that's a tough statement to support or defend. Sure, there are many instances where it's true (include some famous ones in recent years), but as a broad statement......I don't see how you or anyone can assert that, except as a speculation.
What about this? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 10:41 AM

Jeez, I'd never thought he could be much of a doctor anyway.

Surely this one's for Mattardo: Homophobia and physical aggression toward homosexual and heterosexual individuals.
[J Abnorm Psychol. 2001]. Notice the journal - Abnormal Psychology.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 11:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
2- Funkylama: I'm not complaing about the reaction: it's the typical reaction that anyone faces when they oppose political correctness and state a common social viewpoint that a few vocal citizens (5%, last count) find offensive to them, personally. The largest amount of complaining has been on your side, and even after I tried to back down from the subject and end it, it just went on and on. This is not surprising. The typical reactions were stated:
I'm a caveman.
I'm unenlightened.
I'm a homophobe.
Etc, etc.
Yes, all very expected and the usual business. Nothing surprising there. I expected at least a little intelligent conversation, but all I got was the usual "I'm offended, you brute". I'm offended too, but I don't let it get under my skin that much.
*sigh* Don't portray yourself as some tragic victim, nobly fighting the oppressive forces of political correctness. What you said was thinly-veiled homophobia and that's why people objected.
edit: by the way, you have no right to complain about a lack of intelligent discussion when you're criticising homosexuality for not being natural. Presumably you refuse to use airplanes, and squat on the floor instead of using toilets if you find the unnatural so objectionable.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 11:30 AM

Does this never end lol?

So easy to offend certain people - and then the whole world echoes with their complaints and we wait for them to calm down and come back to their senses. It must be just simply awful for you that someone else doesn't agree with you - I feel for you. Life is tough - it would be better if everyone agreed, wouldn't it? So idyllic. So pleasant.

On and on and on and on...

If you want to portray me as a hommophobe, a tragic victim, a caveman, unenlightened - by all means, continue. I, unlike you, will not stop you from voicing your opinion. Please - continue with the show, folks. It's very entertaining - and oh, so predictable!
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 11:32 AM

Originally Posted By: stores
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: stores
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
[

I might as well admit I'm not a pianist, either.


Not surprising.


Insightful, as usual. Where do you find the time to come up with such witty statements? Or are you just so good at being petty and rude that it comes naturally to you, without any effort?


After reading most of what you've written lately, I'd hardly think you have any room, whatsoever, to call anyone else petty, or rude.


Yes, go on... don't stop there: you're on a roll.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 11:33 AM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
2- Funkylama: I'm not complaing about the reaction: it's the typical reaction that anyone faces when they oppose political correctness and state a common social viewpoint that a few vocal citizens (5%, last count) find offensive to them, personally. The largest amount of complaining has been on your side, and even after I tried to back down from the subject and end it, it just went on and on. This is not surprising. The typical reactions were stated:
I'm a caveman.
I'm unenlightened.
I'm a homophobe.
Etc, etc.
Yes, all very expected and the usual business. Nothing surprising there. I expected at least a little intelligent conversation, but all I got was the usual "I'm offended, you brute". I'm offended too, but I don't let it get under my skin that much.
*sigh* Don't portray yourself as some tragic victim, nobly fighting the oppressive forces of political correctness. What you said was thinly-veiled homophobia and that's why people objected.
edit: by the way, you have no right to complain about a lack of intelligent discussion when you're criticising homosexuality for not being natural. Presumably you refuse to use airplanes, and squat on the floor instead of using toilets if you find the unnatural so objectionable.


Oh, of course - absolutely. I'll refrain from *sigh*ing in return.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 11:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
2- Funkylama: I'm not complaing about the reaction: it's the typical reaction that anyone faces when they oppose political correctness and state a common social viewpoint that a few vocal citizens (5%, last count) find offensive to them, personally. The largest amount of complaining has been on your side, and even after I tried to back down from the subject and end it, it just went on and on. This is not surprising. The typical reactions were stated:
I'm a caveman.
I'm unenlightened.
I'm a homophobe.
Etc, etc.
Yes, all very expected and the usual business. Nothing surprising there. I expected at least a little intelligent conversation, but all I got was the usual "I'm offended, you brute". I'm offended too, but I don't let it get under my skin that much.
*sigh* Don't portray yourself as some tragic victim, nobly fighting the oppressive forces of political correctness. What you said was thinly-veiled homophobia and that's why people objected.
edit: by the way, you have no right to complain about a lack of intelligent discussion when you're criticising homosexuality for not being natural. Presumably you refuse to use airplanes, and squat on the floor instead of using toilets if you find the unnatural so objectionable.


Oh, of course - absolutely. I'll refrain from *sigh*ing in return.
Ah yes, the 'la la la I can't hear you' stage of wrongness.
Posted by: theJourney

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 11:41 AM

Don't feed the troll, people.
Posted by: Mattardo

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 11:44 AM

Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
2- Funkylama: I'm not complaing about the reaction: it's the typical reaction that anyone faces when they oppose political correctness and state a common social viewpoint that a few vocal citizens (5%, last count) find offensive to them, personally. The largest amount of complaining has been on your side, and even after I tried to back down from the subject and end it, it just went on and on. This is not surprising. The typical reactions were stated:
I'm a caveman.
I'm unenlightened.
I'm a homophobe.
Etc, etc.
Yes, all very expected and the usual business. Nothing surprising there. I expected at least a little intelligent conversation, but all I got was the usual "I'm offended, you brute". I'm offended too, but I don't let it get under my skin that much.
*sigh* Don't portray yourself as some tragic victim, nobly fighting the oppressive forces of political correctness. What you said was thinly-veiled homophobia and that's why people objected.
edit: by the way, you have no right to complain about a lack of intelligent discussion when you're criticising homosexuality for not being natural. Presumably you refuse to use airplanes, and squat on the floor instead of using toilets if you find the unnatural so objectionable.


Oh, of course - absolutely. I'll refrain from *sigh*ing in return.
Ah yes, the 'la la la I can't hear you' stage of wrongness.


Oh boy...
I know you are.
No I'm not.
I know you are.
No I'm not.

On and on and on and on...
I think I'm going to take the high road and stop replying to these baiting posts. They are accomplishing nothing except back and forth biting and clawing, which I don't want to be associated with. I was wrong to even engage in it.
Posted by: FunkyLlama

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 11:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
Originally Posted By: FunkyLlama
Originally Posted By: Mattardo
2- Funkylama: I'm not complaing about the reaction: it's the typical reaction that anyone faces when they oppose political correctness and state a common social viewpoint that a few vocal citizens (5%, last count) find offensive to them, personally. The largest amount of complaining has been on your side, and even after I tried to back down from the subject and end it, it just went on and on. This is not surprising. The typical reactions were stated:
I'm a caveman.
I'm unenlightened.
I'm a homophobe.
Etc, etc.
Yes, all very expected and the usual business. Nothing surprising there. I expected at least a little intelligent conversation, but all I got was the usual "I'm offended, you brute". I'm offended too, but I don't let it get under my skin that much.
*sigh* Don't portray yourself as some tragic victim, nobly fighting the oppressive forces of political correctness. What you said was thinly-veiled homophobia and that's why people objected.
edit: by the way, you have no right to complain about a lack of intelligent discussion when you're criticising homosexuality for not being natural. Presumably you refuse to use airplanes, and squat on the floor instead of using toilets if you find the unnatural so objectionable.


Oh, of course - absolutely. I'll refrain from *sigh*ing in return.
Ah yes, the 'la la la I can't hear you' stage of wrongness.


Oh boy...
I know you are.
No I'm not.
I know you are.
No I'm not.

On and on and on and on...
I think I'm going to take the high road and stop replying to these baiting posts. They are accomplishing nothing except back and forth biting and clawing, which I don't want to be associated with. I was wrong to even engage in it.
My post was a baiting post but 'Oh, of course - absolutely. I'll refrain from *sigh*ing in return' wasn't? Okay.
Posted by: beet31425

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 12:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Mattardo
If you want to portray me as a hommophobe, a tragic victim, a caveman, unenlightened - by all means, continue. I, unlike you, will not stop you from voicing your opinion. Please - continue with the show, folks. It's very entertaining - and oh, so predictable!

You're experiencing a similar reaction to what you'd get if you wanted to have a civilized, intelligent discussion about creationism or flat-earthism. I can appreciate how that would be frustrating.

-J
Posted by: keyboardklutz

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 12:13 PM

Originally Posted By: beet31425
You're experiencing a similar reaction to what you'd get if you wanted to have a civilized, intelligent discussion about creationism
Intelligent discussion about creationism? Now there's an oxymoron if I every heard one.
Posted by: Kreisler

Re: Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too - 07/11/10 12:17 PM

And we've officially devolved into tag-teaming and one-liners.

That's my cue...